Jerusalem News Agency - Editorial Board
Yesterday morning, Tuesday (12/27/2022), the occupation municipality in Jerusalem worked to fence off “Al-Hamra Land” in the town of Silwan, south of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, despite the lease contract signed and valid between the Samrin family and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate headed by Patriarch Theophilus III.
Patriarch Theophilus III was accused of leaking the plot of land to the occupation municipality in a deal similar to the one he was accused of in the patriarchal property in the Bab al-Khalil area in the Old City of Jerusalem. Accordingly, the Jerusalem News Agency In your hands are the details of the judicial deliberations regarding the confiscated plot of land.
According to official papers and records, the Orthodox Patriarchate owns the land surrounding Silwan Mosque on the four sides, which is registered under “Bas 30125, Section 39, 46, and 47,” and therefore it is the only one authorized to dispose of the land.
Going back, specifically on the twenty-sixth of February 2007, the mayor of the occupation in Jerusalem issued an order in accordance with the Local Authorities Law of 1987 to use the “seizure” plot of land “No. 39” only registered above for a temporary period as a public parking lot, and this order will be renewed once again. Every three years.
The Patriarchate received, through the office of its General Secretary, the occupation municipality’s order to seize the plot of land on Wednesday, the twenty-eighth of February 2007, that is, two days after its issuance.
According to the text of the law, “the owner of the land ownership has the right to object to the order before the mayor or before the Local Affairs Court in Jerusalem, within sixty days from the date the order was delivered to him,” that is, no later than the twenty-ninth of April 2007.
Since the Patriarchate took over the occupation municipality until the end of May 2008, there has been no movement either from the Patriarchate or from the occupation municipality. However, on the thirteenth of June 2008, the occupation municipality, through its own company, “East Jerusalem Development Company Ltd.”, began to begin By placing vehicles in “Parcel No. 39,” which provoked the residents of the town of Silwan, who contacted the Patriarchate, denouncing its allowing the municipality to use the land. As a result, the Patriarchate issued a statement on June 19, 2008, and these are quotes from it: “When His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilus III, Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Holy Lands and Jordan, learned of this, he sent the Patriarchate’s lawyers, Rami Al-Mughrabi and Samer Al-Zoubi, to the site to immediately stop the municipality’s work and evacuate all its workers from there.” Because of the Patriarchate’s categorical rejection of the violation of its property...the Patriarchate’s lawyer supported this position through official registered letters delivered to the Jerusalem Municipality (6/13/2008) and the concerned authorities stating that the Patriarchate, the owner of the property, categorically rejects the infringement that occurred and asks the municipality not to enter the plot of land. It warns it of the legal consequences of ignoring the position of the Patriarchate.”
And here must the question "where She was Patriarchate what between date 26/2/2007 day Issuance The command until 13/6/2008 day Get startedMunicipal By implementing Assault on the earth And why did not She objects on The matter in Then ?!!“
According to the Patriarchate’s statement, its lawyers only moved after the bulldozers of the occupation municipality and settlers entered the land and the people became angry. On June 16, 2008, the lawyers submitted a request to the Magistrate Court in Jerusalem to issue an order against the occupation municipality to prevent it from entering the land. The order was issued by the Patriarchate as a temporary “victory,” as stated in the same statement issued on June 19, 2008: “The victory of the Patriarchate was achieved when it obtained a judicial order preventing the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem from seizing control of a plot of land owned by the Patriarchate in the Silwan area of the Holy City.” Bearing the convenient national “kosher” seal, the statement came in the form: “The Palestinian National Authority, represented by the Office of the Presidency and the Prime Minister, in press releases, has appreciated the position and efforts of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in defending real estate in the face of the Judaizing attack led by multiple Israeli parties with the aim of seizing the largest possible amount.” Possible from these properties.”
According to the story, on June 22, 2008, a session was held in the Jerusalem Magistrate Court in the presence of all concerned parties (the Patriarchate, the Jerusalem Municipality, and the Jerusalem Development Company) to decide on the temporary ban order that it issued based on the Patriarchate’s request. A settlement company called “Donhead” Services joined the session as a defendant.
The aforementioned settlement company claims that it signed with the Patriarchate on 8/31/2004 a “99-year monopoly agreement” for the same plot of land in question.
A week after the Magistrate Court session, specifically on August 30, 2008, the judge issued his final decision in the case, which was as follows:
“Then the next day, the next day, the next day, 1-2 days Read more (February 26, 2017). Please click on the link below Read more. 06/16/08 06/16/08 1 to 2 days before the end of the month Please do not hesitate to contact us. Here's what's going on, what's next, what's wrong There is no need to worry about anything Read more.
May 29, 2008. May 29, 2008.
Please do not hesitate to contact us.
“More than anything else”
And its translation into Arabic: “In light of what was stated previously, I do not find a place to issue a temporary prohibition order preventing the defendants (Jerusalem Municipality and the East Jerusalem Development Company) from implementing the order issued by the Jerusalem Municipality on 02/26/2007 (i.e. executing the seizure of land for the purpose of establishing a working parking lot). However, I maintain the prohibition against using the land for purposes not stipulated in the order.
Accordingly, I cancel the temporary ban order issued by me on 6/16/2008 and order the defendants (the Jerusalem Municipality and the Development Company) to adhere to the objectives of the seizure order and to maintain a reduced ban order prohibiting the defendants from acting in a manner that contradicts the objectives of the order issued by the municipality.”
Maurice Ben Attar – Judge”
In short, the Magistrate Court ruled that the order to seize the land issued on February 26, 2007 by the mayor of Jerusalem and convert it into a parking lot remained in effect, but it prevented the municipality from using the land otherwise.
As a result, the Patriarchate re-issued a statement on 7/7/2008, from which we quote: “This morning, the Jerusalem Magistrate Court judge issued a final decision regarding the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate’s request to prevent the Israeli Municipality of Jerusalem, the East Jerusalem Development Company, and Donhead Services, from entering the Patriarchate’s land.” No. 39, Basin 30125 in the Silwan area, according to Case No. 08/9053 filed on June 15, 2008.”
Referring to the claim of the settlement company Donhead Services regarding the monopoly agreement signed with the Patriarchate, the judge stated in his decision, paragraph 10, the following:
נקודת מבט ונקודת מוצא אחרות מובילות אף הן תוצאה תוצאה: נוכח המחלוקת הנטושה המבקשת לבין המשיבה 3 בנוגע לתוקף חוזה החכירה החכירה מתחייבת מתחייבת ביחסים שביניהם שביניהם שמירת הקיים הקיים דהיינו דהיינו שבה אף אחת לא תוכללבצע או בקשר אליה ללא הסכמת הסכמת האחרת האחרת הסכמת הסכמת הסכמת הסכמת הסכמת האחרת הסכמת הסכמת הסכמת הסכמת ; במציאות זו לא תוכל המבקשת המבקשת נוכח התנגדות המשיבה 3, לבצע העבודות הדרושות להכשרת החלקה לשימוש חניה פרטי או להשתמש בחלקה כמגרש חניה פרטי פרטי (ובאותה מידה מידה לא המשיבה המשיבה 3 לעשות כן כן נוכח לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך לכך The price is 3 times Yes, it's not worth it “Then the next day 1 and 2 days before the end.”
The Arabic translation is: “In light of the dispute between the Patriarchate and Defendant No. 3 (the settlement company Donhead Services) regarding the legality of the monopoly agreement, I keep the situation as it is today, meaning that none of them (the Patriarchate or the company) can carry out any work on the land.” or regarding it without the consent of the other party. In fact, the Patriarchate cannot carry out any work to prepare the land for any purpose without the approval of the other party (the settlement company). This also applies to the settlement company. That is, each party invalidates the other party's legality and loses the right to use the land. Therefore, based on this reality, it is not possible to prevent or postpone the implementation of the work of Defendants No. 1 and 2 (the municipality and the East Jerusalem Development Company) on the aforementioned land plot.”
From what was stated above, it is clear that the Jerusalem Municipality and the Jerusalem Development Company have the right to seize land and use it as a public parking lot in accordance with the administrative order issued by the mayor and to which the Patriarchate did not object. Also, the Patriarchate does not have any right to the land until the Patriarchate submits a case against the settlement company to prove the invalidity of the agreement. The monopoly.
Despite all of this, the Patriarchate’s statement issued the matter as a new “victory” through the statement issued on 7/7/2008, in which the Patriarchate’s lawyer expressed his satisfaction “that the court did not give this agreement any legal legitimacy.”
The legitimate question is how the lawyer was relieved by the decision which states:
- Giving the municipality the right to seize the land and implement its plan there to establish a parking lot for settlers in Silwan.
- The Patriarchate cannot implement any project on the ground and cannot object to the order issued by the mayor of the occupation
- The owner of the right to use and own the land has become the subject of a dispute between the Patriarchate and the settlement company, and they must resolve this dispute in the courts.
- The settlement company has equal rights to the land as the patriarchal rights.
Unfortunately, this is what is repeated in all the cases of deception and evasion headed by Theophilus III and his lawyers, starting with the land of Shamaa, to the recovery of a thousand dunams in Jerusalem, to the Haifa deal, the New Gate deal, and the Rehavia deal, all the way to the liquidation of most of the Orthodox endowments and properties in Jerusalem specifically and in historical Palestine in general.
The question today is what about the entire land, which includes parcels 46 and 47 in addition to 39.
Since 6/2008, the Patriarchate, as it claims, has learned from the court that its use rights for the land were transferred to one of the settlement companies, and to this day it still collects rent from the settlement company and has not returned any fees to it. It has also not taken any legal action to invalidate the deal with the settlement company, noting that all consultations The legal documents related to the Hebron Gate transactions (5 properties) that were submitted to the Palestinian Supreme Presidential Committee for Church Affairs and from there to the Patriarchate since 2007 demanded that the Patriarchate return all the money it received from settlement companies, including the annual rents that settlement companies pay to the Patriarchate, the latest of which is the legal report from the date of 8/20/2018. (Kawar-Petris Law Firm Report), based on incomplete documents submitted by lawyer Asaad Mazawi - the Patriarchate’s lawyer who was also the legal advisor to the Presidential Committee??!!
The legal opinion stated in Clause 3 of the report regarding the Silwan Land, “In any case, the Patriarchate has not yet taken any action to cancel the deals. The time has come for it to do so after we draw lessons from the Hebron Gate decision” (Clause 3.6). He added, “I advise that a separate case be submitted by the Patriarchate regarding each of Silwan’s lands, as well as a separate case regarding the Saint John Hotel” (Clause 3.7).
As for the Patriarchate’s agreement with the settlement company in Silwan, our agency obtained this information:
The agreement was signed on 8/31/2004, and it is a monopoly agreement for the 30,125 basin, plots 39, 46, and 47, for a period of 99 years, in exchange for a payment of 100 thousand dollars. The first installment of 10 thousand dollars is paid 0 days after signing the agreement, and the remaining 9 payments are paid equally every three days. Months, all payments are deposited in the Patriarchate’s account (the details of which are recorded in the agreement), which means that the Patriarchate of Theophilos-Maghribi is aware of the transaction through bank transfers that continued until the end of 2006.
The Orthodox Truth Movement, which helped us in this article, conveyed all the information to all the Jerusalemite and national authorities, and the Palestinian Bar Association even submitted a complaint signed by hundreds of Palestinian figures to the Palestinian Public Prosecutor five years ago. The thanks included all documents, information, testimonies, recordings, and translations of more than 700 pages, but the complaint “ “I neglected the decision.”
The Truth Movement also sent copies of information and documents to the competent authorities in Palestine and Jordan, but to no avail.
In addition to all of this, it turns out that Patriarch Theophilus sells church property and then issues statements of victory, so the Presidential Committee celebrates his victories and pays his lawyer’s fees. The Patriarchate’s lawyer is the same lawyer as the Presidential Committee, and he is the one who provides the lawyers whose fees are paid by the Presidential Committee with documents and information. Our question is whether the President of the Presidential Committee and their administrative staff follow up. What is happening or is all this happening without reading and following up?!?!