Steps

Published by The National Herald, June 10, 2005

Jerusalem: What are the Next Steps?

It looks as if we will have to preface every commentary on events in Jerusalem with the caveat, "as of this writing." Eirineos, who is no longer in communion with virtually the entirety of the Orthodox Church, still refuses to step down as Patriarch. He has taken the position that he was elected Patriarch for life, and that neither force nor precedent exists which can dismiss him involuntarily from his position. In other words, "you can’t fire me and I’m not quitting."

They include the totality of the May 24 Pan-Orthodox Council, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the Governments of Greece, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. Dismissal of the Patriarch by the Holy Synod is a well-established historical and legal precedent. For example, the Holy Synod dismissed Patriarchs Prokopios and Ierotheos in 1875 and 1882, respectively. The deposed Patriarchs accepted the decision and stepped down.

Politically, the situation remains more fluid. Eirineos appears to retain the support of at least some elements of the Israeli Government. Israeli police protect Irineos in his possession of the Patriarch’s apartments in the Greek Orthodox monastery in the Old City of Jerusalem, despite the vote of the Holy Synod. More importantly, Israel’s continued protection enables Irineos to retain control of the Patriarchate’s checkbooks. He continues to pay his attorneys from Patriarchal funds, but has not paid the electric bill. The Patriarchate sits in the dark, and without air conditioning - not a comfortable place to spend a Jerusalem summer.

In any event, the Holy Synod has formally notified the governments of Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority that Irineos is no longer Patriarch, and that it has appointed Archbishop Cornelios, Metropolitan Bishop of Petra as locum tenens, or temporary manager of the Patriarchate - a position without full powers. Once these Governments recognize Cornelios as locum tenens, the Patriarchate will proceed with election of a new Patriarch, a process which will again require the acquiescence of these same governments in the list of candidates.

For many, the idea that, in our modern 21st Century democratic world, a state can decide who will be, or will not be, the bishop at the head of a Christian community seems completely strange. This issue is not the same as the unilateral assertion of authority to veto a new Patriarch in Constantinople by the Turkish state, however; rather, it is based upon authority derived from the Ottoman firman regulating the Status Quo of the Holy Places. This firman largely satisfied Orthodox interests in Jerusalem (it was signed by the Ottomans at the point of a Russian bayonet), and was formally ratified by all the European powers at the Council of Paris in 1856. To break with the Status Quo today would endanger the entire set-up in Jerusalem.

The situation has been altered by the fact that the State of Israel occupied the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967 and has claimed it as sovereign territory, part of the capital of the Israeli State, and not subject to whims of the Geneva Convention.

Israel also has a good domestic political reason to protect Eirineos. He is charged with the crime of illegally leasing Church property to Israeli interests. On the technical legal issue, there is little doubt that Eirineos is guilty. He gave a Greek citizen, Nikos Pappadimas, a "financial advisor," power-of-attorney to lease real estate which Eirineos himself admits was invalid because it was not authorized by the Holy Synod. Politically, Eirineos has incurred the wrath of the Arab World in general, and the Palestinian community in particular, for leasing land to the occupying power (Israel) in Jerusalem.

Israel is now trapped between the rock and the hard place. On the one hand, Israel can not be expected to agree that the leasing of real estate to Israelis is grounds for removing the Patriarch. On the other hand, Israel also argues that the Geneva Convention rules on occupation do not apply in the Old City of Jerusalem, a legal position endorsed only by Costa Rica. But Israel’s declared intention is to retain the Old City as part of a single unified capital of Israel and deny it to any new Palestinian State - a legal position which the United States Government seems to periodically vote against, and then vote for (most recently, President Bush seems to have voted against the Israeli position after voting for it a year ago).

The plot thickens, however. The contract between Nikos Pappadimas (now a fugitive from justice) was written between "Jewish investors" fronting for an Israeli settler organization, "Ateret Cohanim," operating through offshore entities, according to the Israeli press. The identity of the property’s purchasers had, heretofore, been kept secret, reportedly to conceal the money trail. Most of the budget of Ateret Cohanim and other settlers’ organizations come from public and government money. For example, the Israeli press reported that the highly illegal "purchase" of the Patriarchal property known as Saint John’s Hostel was done with money provided by then-Housing Minister David Levy. This would be bad enough, but Jerusalem is rife with rumors that the money trail leads even higher, perhaps to the sons of Prime Minister Sharon, who are now under investigation for fraudulent property transactions in Greece.

If such rumors prove true, the blow back against the Israeli Government could be devastating because settler organizations are looking for issues to discredit Sharon as he pushes forward on his plan for withdrawal from Gaza.

On the Palestinian side, the desire to be rid of Eirineos is palpable, but the issue for Palestinians is clouded by two distinct factors.

First, a certain group of Palestinian Orthodox believes that the Eirineos disaster presents a never-to-be-repeated opportunity to force the Church’s Greek hierarchs to elect an Arab prelate. Aside from the fact that previous Greek efforts to prevent Arab clergy from achieving prominence has presented the appearance of a suitable candidate, the Palestinian Authority believes that an Arab Patriarch would strip the Church of the protection from Israeli aggrandizement which is provided by Greek Patriarchs. Moreover, for the Palestinian Authority, Arabization of the Church is an issue best left to a better day.

Finally, the eternal nemesis of the Patriarchate, Philip Saliba, the Antiochian (Syrian) Archbishop of New Jersey, appears to be working behind the scenes to settle old disputes concerning jurisdiction of Orthodox parishes in the United States. He would like nothing better than to leave the Jerusalem Patriarchate in limbo and lurching towards disaster.

The end result of indecision, no matter what the reason, could well leave the Patriarchate in a situation so bad that it could lose authority, its land and worst of all, its prestige among Christians. By refusing to go quietly, Eirineos has compounded the already immense damage he has caused the See of Jerusalem, where Christ walked, preached, died and was resurrected for all our sins.

Now, as of this writing, the crisis caused and perpetuated by Eirineos has not been resolved. I can only hope that, by the time this commentary is published, it will be. Every day this crisis continues brings continued hardship on our Orthodox brethren, and makes the future of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem much more tenuous.

The Hon. Ambassador Theros served in the U.S. Foreign Service for 36 years, mostly in the Middle East, and was American Ambassador to Qatar from 1995 to 1998. He also directed the State Department’s counter-terrorism office and holds numerous U.S. Government decorations



Volume 7 Number 24 - Tuesday, June 14th, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY