[ArtAllm]

Lol, artallm, your anti-Semitism runs so deep that you think a quote from (unfunny) satirical columnist Joel Stein is proof of an actual Zionist conspiracy to control the world.

That is a usual answer of people who hate non-Jews and believe that Jews are "special".

[wat0n]

Pointing out ArtAllm's inability to understand sarcasm is the hallmark of hatred, it seems.

[noemon]

Try to bring actual evidence rather than your silly theories. As I said, it is noteworthy that not even the PA claimed Israel blackmailed the Church.

Try to be honest, its liberating and exhilarating. It is also quite clear that you did not read the PA report which you brought in here at all, see below.

Excuse me? The opponent's of the Patriarch are within the Church itself, not outside it.

Proof that Greek-Orthodox Priests pressed charges against their Patriarch Ireneos.

You'll have to mail the authors of the report to get names, but it does state clearly that the opponents of the Patriarch Iraneios were part of the Church.

No it just says that certain opponents accused him of antisemitism, it also says that his opponents threatened him directly because he was refusing to lease the land which was actually paid by the Israeli state directly.

The buyers' lawyer is a well-known Israeli, who is famous for his experience in representing the extreme right, including Arfing Moscowitz, Himont Company, Alert Cohanim, ELAD institution. All of them are well-known extreme rightists. Their members, aims and practices are known. They seek to buy Arab property within the walls of the Old City and in East Jerusalem and in various locations, with the aim of expanding Israeli control over settlement sites in Arab Jerusalem. Among the well-known cases in which he represents settlers, the lease of Saint John building in the Old City. It turned out that the Israeli government stood behind its purchase, and paid for it from the budget of the Ministry of Housing. The buyers’ lawyers have strong and diversified relations with political circles from the Right wing which support his clients.

Papadimas knew the buyers’ lawyer ever since he began his work. We did not know who the medium between them was. We did not know the background of the meeting or the introduction that took place.

The relationship between the buyers’ lawyer and Papadimas was so strong that Papadimas was considered (one of the family members). He visited him frequently and consulted him in various matters (according to the buyers’ lawyer himself). The buyers’ lawyer used to visit Papadimas in his apartment in Jaffa. This relationship grew stronger in 2004. The buyers’ lawyer was seen many times in Papadimas office at the Patriarchate during the few months prior to Papadimas flight. The buyers’ lawyer visits to that Patriarchate did not draw the attention of any of the officials at the Patriarchate.

At the end of the meeting, Mr. Cohen revealed that he had close and strong connections with Israeli government quarters, which he can manipulate to advance the interest of the Patriarchate before them, including the attempt to initiate the conclusion of an agreement to put the Patriarchate on equal footing with those of the Vatican in terms of the legal status of its institutions. Nearly two weeks later, the Patriarch paid a visit to the newly appointed Al-Qishleh Police Chief Yoram Halevi Levi to congratulate him on his new post. The Patriarch was accompanied by group of bishops and priests. On emerging from this meeting the Patriarch was again approached by Mr. Cohen, who “happened” to be there. He greeted him and reminded him of himself and their previous encounter. He then informed him that he had talked with an expert advocate who is very well connected with various influential Israeli government quarters. He then expressed his willingness to arrange a meeting between the Patriarch and that advocate.

A week later, Mr. Cohen called the Patriarch and invited him to a meeting at the King David Hotel where they met. The Patriarch was accompanied by two priests who arrived recently from Greece. Mr. Cohen introduced the Patriarch to the advocate who turned out to be none other than the advocate of the buyers. That was his first encounter with the buyers’ advocate, whom he had never known before, and who (the advocate) identified himself as “Etan”.

This name did not attract the attention or wonder of the Patriarch or his escorts. The buyers’ advocate disclosed to the Patriarch all the information he had about the Patriarch and his knowledge of his predecessors. The information disclosed indicated an extensive and comprehensive knowledge of what was and is going on within the Patriarchate.

A conversation took place between them, on one hand, and Mr. Cohen and the buyers’ advocate on the other. The advocate focused in general on what interested the Patriarch, namely, the issue of raising the status of the Patriarchate, and to initiate an agreement with the Israeli government giving the Patriarchate and its institutions the same rights stipulated in the agreement between the Vatican and the Israeli government concerning the Vatican Catholic institutions. Also, the buyers’ advocate talked about different issues for the Patriarchate and about pending issues and previous issues about the relations with the late Benediktos and about the relation with the late Diodoros.

The conversation ended with talk about arranging another meeting between them to follow up on the development of this relationship. Indeed another meeting took place. In King David Hotel and in the presence of the same persons, the lawyer called Mr. Cohen (Mati).

This name attracted the attention of one of the Patriarch’s companions (Archimandrite Ireneos) who did not know the identity of the persons whom he met during this meeting.

He recalled that the name (Mati) was mentioned in the diaries of Papadimas, which he found in the accounting office in the Patriarchate. He asked him if he was the same (Mati) who was connected with Papadimas. He affirmed his relationship with him, in addition that he had a working relationship with him, and that they concluded several contracts between them.

When asked about the nature of those contracts, he replied that they are related to long term lease of the church property. Mr. Mati did not elaborate. The priest reported the matter to the Patriarch and warned him that the persons he is meeting with are but Papadimas friends, and they may be deceiving him, consequently, he should exercise caution with them. They were told that they had no knowledge of what they were talking about, and that the Patriarch knew nothing about what they were talking, and also the Holy Synod did not endorse any document they talked about, keeping in mind that any real estate deal would not be valid unless it is ratified by the Holy Synod and signed by the Patriarch, as stipulated by the law.

This is something well known to the government circles. The Patriarchate confirmed this in writing to the officials. Such ratifications were never done and were never finalized at any time whatsoever.

The other side refused to disclose any information. They tried to pacify the Patriarch and his companions. They suggested another meeting to discuss the case of Papadimas and what he signed.

Indeed, after few days Mati (Mr. Cohen) came with another person he claimed to be Mr. Levin. During a conversation it appeared that Levin also knows a lot about the Patriarchate’s property. Mr. Levin offered his services to help Archimandrite Ireneos who was newly appointed, as head of the Financial Department, to get acquainted with the Patriarchate’s property. The Patriarch thanked him and repeated his request for information about the deals which the buyers’ advocate and Mr. Cohen claimed existed during their meeting at King David Hotel.

They repeated that unless he collaborates with them, they would not provide him with any information about the deals, yet they tried to placate and assure him and promised him to talk to the lawyer in order to settle the case.

Hardly two weeks had passed Mr. Cohen (Mati) and Mr. Levin had reiterated their request from the Patriarch and the Archimandrite. To cooperate with them to conclude the deals, Levin threatened that unless the Patriarch cooperates with them, a grave thing will happen. Once again, the Patriarch insisted on his unwillingness to talk about or enter into any negotiations regarding any deal with Papadimas. He insisted upon seeing the document. The response was that the Patriarch had until March 17, 2005 to decide, otherwise, “an atomic bomb” will fall at the Patriarch’s court. Indeed, on March 17, 2005, they called the Patriarch and renewed their warning. They gave him until 5 pm to respond or “the bomb will explode”.

Asked and answered already

What are you talking about?

[ArtAllm]

What kind of vile and twisted history is that turns Judaic religious followers, or monotheists into the victims of history. Sure Christianity and Islam were vile terrorist bigoted religions, but they were forms of Judaism.

Christianity and almost certainly Islam were started by Jews. We pagans have suffered 3000 years of murder, torture and terror at the hands of Judaic religious followers. What have you got on the other side, the Bolsheviks, Spanish civil war anarchists and a handful of Nazi pagans. The Jews only refrained from inflicting terror on non believers during the middle ages because they had no power. Was Jerusalem a centre of tolerance, compassion and human universalism before the Romans took it over? I don't think so.
...

What the worshippers of Isis Odin or the Morrigan would have given to have got away with ghetoisation and a few pogroms.

VERY GOOD POINTS!!!

We should build around Europe memorials to commemorate and honour our tortured and killed polytheistic ancestors, who were victims of intolerant Abrahamits, the followers of hateful, intolerant and foreign to Europe Desert-Cults, like Judaism and the spin-offs, Christianity and Islam.

Where can I get the compensation for my killed polytheistic European ancestors?

Who must be ashamed for that genocide against Europeans, and who is going to pay the reparations to the survivors and their descendants?

[wat0n]

Try to be honest, its liberating and exhilarating. It is also quite clear that you did not read the PA report which you brought in here at all, see below.

Why don't you try that and finally read the sources I provide?

Proof that Greek-Orthodox Priests pressed charges against their Patriarch Ireneos.

It's as simple as reading the Background section of the report:

Background

Ireneos' path was not paved with roses when he assumed the leadership of the Patriarchate. From the beginning of his election to the post as Patriarch of the Holy City, he found himself engulfed with strong and shrewd opposition and contenders having close contacts with countries, officials and strong politicians in Israel, Jordan, Greece and Russia, etc.

His contenders did not concede his victory and election as a Patriarch. They continued their attacks on him from all directions. They managed to convince the Israeli Government that Ireneos is anti-Semitic and is not comfortable to the Israeli government. No, on the contrary, he was a pro-Palestinian. They reinforced this claim by showing copies of letters and meetings with the late President Yaser Arafat. The refusal of the Israeli government to recognize him after his election impeded him from executing his basic duties as Patriarch.

He was unauthorized even to sign a check drawn on any bank in the name of the Patriarchate. Neither was he allowed to sign any order or contract or undertaking before any official circle or any official papers. As a result he suffered from a financial crisis that affected not only him but all those who collaborated with him from among his followers or companions, be they monks or secularists alike.

His predecessor or those around him left him an empty coffer and treasury and passed on to him debts and dues estimated about NIS 85 million. Sources of revenue were scarce and there were several pending cases before courts, distributed among several law firms.

The property files were not in order. They were not in their proper place at the Patriarchate’s Treasury Department. As well as the files of the deals which were arranged, edited, signed and endorsed by his predecessors. These were not in the offices of the Patriarchate, but they were distributed and kept at the offices of the lawyers who handled them. In view of all the above, he was unable to see what his predecessors have done or what they have left him. That was still in need of handling and follow-up, and to apprise himself of what was going on.

The land of the monasteries, especially the holy places related to the Patriarchate, was either a property or a trust to the appointed head. This has been the practice over the years. The appointment of favorites to head the monasteries or the holy place was a means to buy the appointed archimandrite or bishop. Changing this situation and reorganizing and reforming the status-quo and the imposition of financial control on all monasteries and channeling and recording their revenues to the Patriarchate treasury, was a factor that caused grumbling and dissatisfaction and was a motive for opposing the Patriarch.

The efforts of the Patriarch to urge the Israeli government to recognize him as Patriarch were prolonged to no avail. Thus, he was forced to resort to Israeli lawyers to represent him before official circles whence he demanded that they issue their decision. When no response was received he petitioned the High Court against the government, demanding that the latter explain the reasons behind the government’s refusal to recognize him as Patriarch of the Holy City. The High Court dismissed this petition when the public prosecutor attributed the delay to on- going investigation of the elected Patriarch’s past, and whether he was involved in criminal cases. Following a lengthy delay, and for lack of any evidence of criminal cases against him as claimed by his opponents, the Israeli government endorsed his election on January 28, 2004.

Note that the report does NOT state that the opponents were Israelis, let alone the Israeli government (on the contrary, it states they told the Israeli government that the new Patriarch was anti-Israel). The only opponents mentioned are those within the Church itself.

The buyers' lawyer is a well-known Israeli, who is famous for his experience in representing the extreme right, including Arfing Moscowitz, Himont Company, Alert Cohanim, ELAD institution. All of them are well-known extreme rightists. Their members, aims and practices are known. They seek to buy Arab property within the walls of the Old City and in East Jerusalem and in various locations, with the aim of expanding Israeli control over settlement sites in Arab Jerusalem. Among the well-known cases in which he represents settlers, the lease of Saint John building in the Old City. It turned out that the Israeli government stood behind its purchase, and paid for it from the budget of the Ministry of Housing. The buyers’ lawyers have strong and diversified relations with political circles from the Right wing which support his clients.

Papadimas knew the buyers’ lawyer ever since he began his work. We did not know who the medium between them was. We did not know the background of the meeting or the introduction that took place.

The relationship between the buyers’ lawyer and Papadimas was so strong that Papadimas was considered (one of the family members). He visited him frequently and consulted him in various matters (according to the buyers’ lawyer himself). The buyers’ lawyer used to visit Papadimas in his apartment in Jaffa. This relationship grew stronger in 2004. The buyers’ lawyer was seen many times in Papadimas office at the Patriarchate during the few months prior to Papadimas flight. The buyers’ lawyer visits to that Patriarchate did not draw the attention of any of the officials at the Patriarchate.

At the end of the meeting, Mr. Cohen revealed that he had close and strong connections with Israeli government quarters, which he can manipulate to advance the interest of the Patriarchate before them, including the attempt to initiate the conclusion of an agreement to put the Patriarchate on equal footing with those of the Vatican in terms of the legal status of its institutions. Nearly two weeks later, the Patriarch paid a visit to the newly appointed Al-Qishleh Police Chief Yoram Halevi Levi to congratulate him on his new post. The Patriarch was accompanied by group of bishops and priests. On emerging from this meeting the Patriarch was again approached by Mr. Cohen, who “happened” to be there. He greeted him and reminded him of himself and their previous encounter. He then informed him that he had talked with an expert advocate who is very well connected with various influential Israeli government quarters. He then expressed his willingness to arrange a meeting between the Patriarch and that advocate.

A week later, Mr. Cohen called the Patriarch and invited him to a meeting at the King David Hotel where they met. The Patriarch was accompanied by two priests who arrived recently from Greece. Mr. Cohen introduced the Patriarch to the advocate who turned out to be none other than the advocate of the buyers. That was his first encounter with the buyers’ advocate, whom he had never known before, and who (the advocate) identified himself as “Etan”.

This name did not attract the attention or wonder of the Patriarch or his escorts. The buyers’ advocate disclosed to the Patriarch all the information he had about the Patriarch and his knowledge of his predecessors. The information disclosed indicated an extensive and comprehensive knowledge of what was and is going on within the Patriarchate.

A conversation took place between them, on one hand, and Mr. Cohen and the buyers’ advocate on the other. The advocate focused in general on what interested the Patriarch, namely, the issue of raising the status of the Patriarchate, and to initiate an agreement with the Israeli government giving the Patriarchate and its institutions the same rights stipulated in the agreement between the Vatican and the Israeli government concerning the Vatican Catholic institutions. Also, the buyers’ advocate talked about different issues for the Patriarchate and about pending issues and previous issues about the relations with the late Benediktos and about the relation with the late Diodoros.

The conversation ended with talk about arranging another meeting between them to follow up on the development of this relationship. Indeed another meeting took place. In King David Hotel and in the presence of the same persons, the lawyer called Mr. Cohen (Mati).

This name attracted the attention of one of the Patriarch’s companions (Archimandrite Ireneos) who did not know the identity of the persons whom he met during this meeting.

He recalled that the name (Mati) was mentioned in the diaries of Papadimas, which he found in the accounting office in the Patriarchate. He asked him if he was the same (Mati) who was connected with Papadimas. He affirmed his relationship with him, in addition that he had a working relationship with him, and that they concluded several contracts between them.

When asked about the nature of those contracts, he replied that they are related to long term lease of the church property. Mr. Mati did not elaborate. The priest reported the matter to the Patriarch and warned him that the persons he is meeting with are but Papadimas friends, and they may be deceiving him, consequently, he should exercise caution with them. They were told that they had no knowledge of what they were talking about, and that the Patriarch knew nothing about what they were talking, and also the Holy Synod did not endorse any document they talked about, keeping in mind that any real estate deal would not be valid unless it is ratified by the Holy Synod and signed by the Patriarch, as stipulated by the law.

This is something well known to the government circles. The Patriarchate confirmed this in writing to the officials. Such ratifications were never done and were never finalized at any time whatsoever.

The other side refused to disclose any information. They tried to pacify the Patriarch and his companions. They suggested another meeting to discuss the case of Papadimas and what he signed.

Indeed, after few days Mati (Mr. Cohen) came with another person he claimed to be Mr. Levin. During a conversation it appeared that Levin also knows a lot about the Patriarchate’s property. Mr. Levin offered his services to help Archimandrite Ireneos who was newly appointed, as head of the Financial Department, to get acquainted with the Patriarchate’s property. The Patriarch thanked him and repeated his request for information about the deals which the buyers’ advocate and Mr. Cohen claimed existed during their meeting at King David Hotel.

They repeated that unless he collaborates with them, they would not provide him with any information about the deals, yet they tried to placate and assure him and promised him to talk to the lawyer in order to settle the case.

Hardly two weeks had passed Mr. Cohen (Mati) and Mr. Levin had reiterated their request from the Patriarch and the Archimandrite. To cooperate with them to conclude the deals, Levin threatened that unless the Patriarch cooperates with them, a grave thing will happen. Once again, the Patriarch insisted on his unwillingness to talk about or enter into any negotiations regarding any deal with Papadimas. He insisted upon seeing the document. The response was that the Patriarch had until March 17, 2005 to decide, otherwise, “an atomic bomb” will fall at the Patriarch’s court. Indeed, on March 17, 2005, they called the Patriarch and renewed their warning. They gave him until 5 pm to respond or “the bomb will explode”.

So this shady person, Mati Cohen, simply leaked the claims to Ma'ariv on 2005, a whole year after the Israeli government recognized Iraneios as the Patriarch. So, what's your basis to claim the non-recognition by the Israeli government was a form of blackmail again?

Furthermore, nothing in the article suggests that the Israeli government threatened Iraneios to force him to sell lands, but that the buyers (who seemingly bought it from the Church because Papadimas sold them abusing the Power provided by the Patriarch) did and contacted the press (not even the Israeli government).

The closest involvement of the Israeli government in all of this is that they financed the lease of the St John Hotel (at least during the administration by a previous Patriarch and maybe in the case dealing with that property under Iraneios) which is neither here nor there as Papadimas had acted representing Iraneios when taking part in the transaction (which took place after January 28 of 2004 as well, once Iraneios was already recognized by Israel as the Patriarch - more on this below) and there was no reason for it to assume Papadimas was acting against the wishes of the Patriarch since he had been empowered to do so.

Even the idea of leasing properties to Israeli citizens was not something necessarily unprecedented as the report mentions similar transactions had been done in the past:

PETRA, IMPERIAL, SAINT JOHN deals concluded under Patriarch Diodoros

1. The case of the Saint John Hotel building has been known for several years. It is still pending before the courts until today. It is being followed up on by an Arab lawyer who received it from the Patriarchate’s lawyer.

2. No one knew about agreements concerning al-Petra and Imperial Hotels since the time of the late Diodoros.

The only one who hinted at this instance was Papadimas during his first conversation with the Advocate Elias Khouri through the journalist. However, he didn't give any details on the matter.

3. The first time the buyers' lawyer talked about the existence of such deals was during one of his encounters with Advocate Elias Khouri, prior to Patriarch Ireneos’ departure to Istanbul. He hinted that by providing us with documents related to the deals, we could "clear" Ireneos from charges and claims against him regarding this property. Mr. Elias didn't pay attention to such talk and he refused them demonstrating that the only option we have was to annul all deals, if any. He insisted on the need to get all the documents regarding this property.

4. The second time there was a declaration about the existence of this old property, came two days before the departure of the Patriarch to Istanbul when he was notified (via-David\yousef) directly about them. They also informed him of their willingness to provide him with the documents so that he could defend himself before the Synod in Istanbul. The Patriarch refused to deal with such a possibility as mentioned somewhere else in our report.

5. To prove the authenticity of their utterances, they provided us with a single document concerning al-Petra Hotel and signed in 1997.

It is attached to our report, and {they provided us} with a declaration from Advocate Davis Daniel in which he acknowledges knowing about three deals signed by Metropolitan Constantine.

The transactions in this case however all took place after January 28, 2004:

The Deals under Investigation

Upon receiving the report and declarations submitted to the Land Tax Department together with the documents attached, it became clear that:

First: on August 16, 2004 Papadimas, acting on behalf of the Patriarch, signed a lease contract for 99 years of the property located in Al-Moristan Aftimos Market –Al Dabbagha – Old City, known as Saint John Hotel. According to this contract, the property was leased to a company in the name of (Humberstone Ventures S.A). It is a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, with anonymous shareholders, for the amount of $400,000 US dollars paid in two equal installments to the Patriarchate.

In addition to this amount, the company undertook to pay in advance a rent for $7,500 US dollars every three months.

Second: On August 16, 2004 Papadimas acting on behalf of the Patriarch, signed a lease contract for 99 years with a company in the name of (Richards Marketing Corporation) registered in the British Virgin Islands with anonymous share holders. In accordance with this contract, the Imperial Hotel building located in the square of Omar Ibn Al Khattab, Baab Al Khalil, Jerusalem, was leased for the amount of $1,250,000 US dollars, transferred to the account of the Patriarchate in Leumi Bank in Jaffa in four installments, the first of which was $350,000 US dollars then three installments each for $300,000 US dollars.

We could not find in the said account any remittances in this amount; however, we found a remittance for the amount of $259,929 US dollars on August 20, 2004.
Third: On August 23, 2004, Papadimas, acting on behalf of the Patriarch, signed a lease contract for 99 years to lease the Petra Hotel building with a company by the name of "Petra Ford Investment Ltd."; a company registered on "Quadinsi" with anonymous shareholders, for a total amount for the whole period of the lease, of $500,000 US dollars, paid in two equal installments, the first within 30 days from the date of signing the agreement and the second after 60 days as of signing.

This amount was remitted to the Patriarchate Account at Leumi Bank Branch No. 80, Yafat St. Jaffa, the first on September 29, 2004 and the second on October 22, 2004.

On October 19, 2004 Papadimas withdrew $150,000 US dollars in cash. He also withdrew another $150,000 US dollars on November 2, 2004. There were also withdrawals in Israeli currency from this account to unknown quarters.

We were not able yet to receive all the relevant account sheets. We didn't receive yet copies of the payment transfers and vouchers of payment at the bank.

Fourth: On October 19, 2004, Papadimas, acting on behalf of the patriarch, signed a lease contract for real estate plot No 45 lot 30859 including the house built on it in Al-Mo'athamiyya Str. No. 18, Bab Hutta- Old City.

The lease duration is 99 years for the amount of $55,000 US dollars in three payments, the first installment $10,000 US dollars to be paid within 30 days, the second payment for $15,000 US dollars to be paid on January 1, 2005, the third for $15,000 US dollars to be paid on February 1, 2005.

The fourth payment for $15,000 US dollars was to be paid on March 1, 2005.

These payments were supposed to be transferred to the said Bank Leumi account. But there was no mention of these amounts in the accounts we received, bearing in mind that despite our request to the bank, it didn't deliver them to us.

It is worth mentioning that this Bank Account was closed as of the end of February 2005.

Papadimas was authorized to sign for the said account as well as for all the Patriarchate's accounts at the banks, in the capacity of the position he held at the time.

We could not find in the documents which we received and reviewed, any signature or any evidence indicating that the Patriarch received any amount of the transferred payments. In addition, the buyers' lawyer acknowledges that he did not remit any amount to the Patriarch.

For information, at the outset of our meetings with the buyers' lawyer, he pointed out seven and not four deals, as shown in the documents we got from the Land Tax Department. However, after several meetings, the buyers' lawyer backed out and declared that the contracted deals were only the four we got.
Certainly, what were submitted to the Land Tax Department were the documents of the four mentioned deals. As a precautionary measure, we will follow the matter with the Land Tax Department.

We obtained partial data about banks, through the authorization given to us by the Patriarch, and through the cooperation of Archimandrite Ireneos who went by himself to the banks demanding the turnover of all the data which we hope will be received shortly.

Note that Papadimas was the person who carried the transactions (and negotiations) out, and that (of course) most of the money vanished.

[ArtAllm]

Huh? He got released only after serving his full sentence.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment, though death penalty would be the appropriate punishment.
Hundreds of American assets were executed by the Soviets due to this guy, but he got away with high treason.

Would any other person (non-Jew) get away with such a mild punishment?

... Ovadia's position on the matter is far from being universally agreed among Jews, even Orthodox ones.

Who cares if it is universal or not?

Moses Maimonides and Ovadia Yosef explicitly told that it is forbidden for a Jew to save the life of a non-Jew on Sabbath.
If a Jew can get away with refusing to save the life of a non-Jew on Sabbath (like it is the case in Israel, but was not always the case in the countries of "atni-Semites"), then he has to stick to this law.

Israel Shahak just mentioned such a case in his book, and you had the nerve to call him a "liar", because supposedly nobody sticks to this rule, mentioned by Maimonides any more.

But Ovadia Yosef- a prominent and recognized authority in this question, recently confirmed this law, and he openly told that non-Jews were created to serve the Jewish "Übermenschen", like a donkey was created to serve his master.

After that this racist got the biggest funeral in the history of Israel, and prominent politicians called him "our great teacher".

[noemon]

It's as simple as reading the Background section of the report:

No it is not, nowhere is it written that Orthodox priests pressed charges against Ireneos. Nowhere is it written that Israel had any legal basis to freeze the Patriarchate's bank accounts.

The closest involvement of the Israeli government in all of this is that they financed the lease

The Israeli government froze the bank accounts of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, banned entry to its leaders, directly financed the far-right groups who explicitly threatened the Patriarchs who refused to lease land to them. The Patriarch had his car rammed, his life threatened. The report confirms that the Greek church has inferior legal status to the Catholic church, further confirming the fact of ethnic & religious discrimination in Israel not just for Arabs but for Europeans as well.

It is not really difficult to see the pattern here. But it is good to know that all these facts & events are absolutely fine for you. What can I say really?

What do you want me to say? That all these stuff is normal, that Christians enjoy the civil rights and protections that Jews enjoy in Europe?

[wat0n]

He was sentenced to life in prison, though death penalty would be the appropriate punishment.
Hundreds of American assets were executed by the Soviets due to this guy, but he got away with high treason.

Would any other person (non-Jew) get away with such a mild punishment?

Yes, indeed even those who leaked American nuclear secrets to the Soviets didn't get the death sentence - except the Rosenbergs who were Jews. I'd say that caused way more damage than Pollard could ever dream of.

Even worse, the prosecutor himself recommended giving him a softer sentence as part of a plea bargain, which the judge ignored.

Pollard would then be released under parole following the guidelines in place at the time he was sentenced (life sentence inmates could be paroled after 30 years if they show good behavior and low chance of recidivism). Not only he did not get special treatment despite the pleas for clemency by the Israeli government and some pro-Israel advocacy groups, but even the current administration refused to change the terms of his parole, which are standard as well.

Who cares if it is universal or not?

Those who don't want to demonize ethnorreligious groups would most certainly acknowledge the divisions within these groups.

Those who do, of course, won't.

Moses Maimonides and Ovadia Yosef explicitly told that it is forbidden for a Jew to save the life of a non-Jew on Sabbath.

So what? Other major Rabbis say it isn't, and indeed the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel at the time ruled that it isn't as you should know already

If a Jew can get away with refusing to save the life of a non-Jew on Sabbath (like it is the case in Israel, but was not always the case in the countries of "atni-Semites"), then he has to stick to this law.

Who says he would? He wouldn't as you should already know.

Israel Shahak just mentioned such a case in his book, and you had the nerve to call him a "liar", because supposedly nobody sticks to this rule, confirmed by both Maimonides and Ovadia - the greatest authorities in this question,

No, he's a liar because it turned out that the incident never even happened as has been argued already.

Why do you post stuff that was already discussed I wonder?

No it is not, nowhere is it written that Orthodox priests pressed charges against Ireneos. Nowhere is it written that Israel had any legal basis to freeze the Patriarchate's bank accounts.

Who were the opponents mentioned in the background section then? I am doubtful Israel as an interest on how the Church budgets each monastery (which is one of the reasons of why there was opposition to Iraneios according to the report).

And where is it mentioned that the Israeli government brought the charges up?

As for the legal basis for non-recognition and all the effects this entails, as the occupier Israel has the right to administer these affairs. So you are wrong on this as well.

The Israeli government froze the bank accounts of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem,

Yes, because priests within the Church were requesting a criminal investigation. Obviously this means that accounts would be frozen during its duration.

banned entry to its leaders,

Due to the investigation referred to above, though that isn't mentioned in the PA's report.

directly financed the far-right groups who explicitly threatened the Patriarchs who refused to lease land to them.

Who wanted to enforce the agreement signed by Papadimas, who had gotten a power from the Patriarch and misused it. Of course, it is not really clear that they were aware of this.

The Patriarch had his car rammed, his life threatened.

By whom? The report doesn't lodge any accusations on that. You are just assuming the Israelis did so, with no evidence to back it up - usually a behavior that signals hatred.

The report confirms that the Greek church has inferior legal status to the Catholic church, further confirming the fact of ethnic & religious discrimination in Israel not just for Arabs but for Europeans as well.

Largely because 1) the Greek Orthodox Church hadn't entered negotiations to update it like the Vatican did and 2) because the Vatican is a State and the Greek Orthodox Church isn't, which further complicates things unless Greece itself may want to join the negotiations as well.

Ironically, the process between Israel and the Vatican is now moving slowly because it'd be problematic for Israel to move further while the other Christian churches don't catch up.

It is not really difficult to see the pattern here. But it is good to know that all these facts & events are absolutely fine for you. What can I say really?

Indeed, the pattern being that you are desperate to frame the Israeli government here to the point that you choose to disregard parts of the report that suggest there was fighting within the Church. Why?

What do you want me to say? That all these stuff is normal, that Christians enjoy the civil rights and protections that Jews enjoy in Europe?

What about you finally admit you aren't being intellectually honest?

[ArtAllm]

...life sentence inmates could be paroled after 30 years if they show good behavior and low chance of recidivism.

Pollard never regretted and never apologised, your arguments are ridiculous. Pollard continued his treason even when he was already in prison.

No, he's a liar because it turned out that the incident never even happened...

Nobody was able to prove that this did not happen, and that Shahak was a liar, what you quoted was just libel and silly allegations.

[wat0n]

Pollard never regretted and never apologised, your arguments are ridiculous.

So you think there is a chance he may spy for a foreign country again, after being kicked out of the US intelligence community? Nonsense.

Nobody was able to prove that this did not happen, and that Shahak was a liar, what you quoted was just libel and silly allegations.

As I stated back then, the burden of proof fell on Shahak not on those who say he wasn't telling the truth: You aren't supposed to prove a negative.

[Pisa]

Moses Maimonides and Ovadia Yosef explicitly told that it is forbidden for a Jew to save the life of a non-Jew on Sabbath.

Wrong.

Ovadia Yosef said that it is forbidden for ONE religious jewish physician to treat a gentile on sabbath. He clearly stated that it takes TWO members of the medical staff to treat one gentile on sabbath. Which also implies that jews should first and foremost respect the laws of the (secular) state.

The rabbi offered a halachic solution that follows a rule by which if a single person is doing the act, he is violating the Sabbath, while if two people are doing it together, they are exempt.

"The doctor who needs to operate will call on another doctor, or nurse, to hold the scalpel together and make the incision," said Rabbi Yosef, saying that "it is necessary in order for religious physicians to refrain from being put on trial for distinguishing between a Jew and a gentile on Sabbath."

[wat0n]

Interesting. Weird, but interesting.

[noemon]

Who were the opponents mentioned in the background section then? I am doubtful Israel as an interest on how the Church budgets each monastery (which is one of the reasons of why there was opposition to Iraneios according to the report).

Why don't you answer your own question? The fact is that himself and his church are being persecuted in Israel actively by the State and other crazy Israelis financed by Israel who are explicitly threatening his life. Since you claim that Greek Orthodoxes pressed charges against their Patriarch you need to provide evidence.

As for the legal basis for non-recognition and all the effects this entails, as the occupier Israel has the right to administer these affairs. So you are wrong on this as well.

All states have the legal right to interfere in religious affairs within their jurisdiction, and be judged according to their interference. The Nazis had legal rights too to do what they did to the Jews and others, they were the elected government and occupiers with full legal control of the territories. Trying to justify persecution and threats is a new one even for you and especially when it comes to Christians. I thought you only hated the Muslims but clearly you hate the Greek-Orthodox too. And then have the audacity to cry for anti-semitism in Europe. The fact that Israel is an occupier makes it even worse.

Yes, because priests within the Church were requesting a criminal investigation. Obviously this means that accounts would be frozen during its duration.

Proof of your claim that Orthodox Priests pressed charges against their Patriarch, and the obviously does not follow by any liberal democratic standard in the world.

Who wanted to enforce the agreement signed by Papadimas, who had gotten a power from the Patriarch and misused it. Of course, it is not really clear that they were aware of this.

Are you saying that these people were right to explicitly threaten the Patriarch and the Patriarchate? People financed directly but the state of Israel?

Largely because 1) the Greek Orthodox Church hadn't entered negotiations to update it like the Vatican did and 2) because the Vatican is a State and the Greek Orthodox Church isn't, which further complicates things

Evidence that the Custodian of the Tomb of Jesus Christ are to blame for their inferior legal status in Israel compared to other churches.

Indeed, the pattern being that you are desperate to frame the Israeli government here to the point that you choose to disregard parts of the report that suggest there was fighting within the Church. Why?

Dissent within the church exists because of the issue of the land demanded by Israel and because of the persecution imposed on the church by Israel resulting to her inability to maintain the Tomb of Jesus Christ.

The fact of the matter is that the Israeli government froze the bank accounts of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, banned entry to its leaders, directly financed the far-right groups who explicitly threatened the Patriarchs who refused to lease land to them. The Patriarch had his car rammed, his life threatened. The report confirms that the Greek church has inferior legal status to the Catholic church, further confirming the fact of ethnic & religious discrimination in Israel not just for Arabs but for Europeans as well.

What about you finally admit you aren't being intellectually honest?

Unlike yourself who has already admitted of being dishonest, I am being very honest with you, you are refusing to answer the questions and address the arguments. Here you go again because clearly you have a bad memory:

The court ruling very explicitly recommends to the State of Israel to consider whether it can allow 2 Israeli Muslims to settle in a new exclusively Jewish neighborhood.
You are begging me to state that because of this ruling Israel is not racist when it comes to land management, but this does not follow, in fact the court itself admits that Israel is racist when it comes to land management. This is further verified by an Israeli professor, by the Israel Land Authority wiki article, by the al-Kurd family case, by the UN, the European Parliament and by the ordeals that Christians Churches like the Greek-Orthodox church have to face in Israel. I really don't get what your expectations are here.

[wat0n]

Why don't you answer your own question? The fact is that himself and his church are being persecuted in Israel actively by the State and other crazy Israelis financed by Israel who are explicitly threatening his life. Since you claim that Greek Orthodoxes pressed charges against their Patriarch you need to provide evidence.

Prove Israelis threatened his life.

At least the report doesn't mention that but maybe you could enlighten me?

The report states his opponents pressed charges against him in a section in which the opponents they refer to are disgruntled Orthodox priests.

All states have the legal right to interfere in religious affairs within their jurisdiction, and be judged according to their interference. The Nazis had legal rights too to do what they did to the Jews and others, they were the elected government and occupiers with full legal control of the territories. Trying to justify persecution and threats is a new one even for you and especially when it comes to Christians. I thought you only hated the Muslims but clearly you hate the Greek-Orthodox too. And then have the audacity to cry for anti-semitism in Europe. The fact that Israel is an occupier makes it even worse.

Excuse me? Sorry but I don't hate neither Muslims nor Christians.

And not only Israel has a right but a duty to properly administer and take care of major holy sites like those owned by the several churches in Jerusalem.

Proof of your claim that Orthodox Priests pressed charges against their Patriarch, and the obviously does not follow by any liberal democratic standard in the world.

So according to you freezing the accounts of institutions (be they religious, firms, associations, etc) under investigation over allegations that criminal activity took place is not a standard procedure?

Are you saying that these people were right to explicitly threaten the Patriarch and the Patriarchate? People financed directly but the state of Israel?

I wouldn't say that, but the representative of the Patriarch did sign the agreement with them.

Evidence that the Custodian of the Tomb of Jesus Christ are to blame for their inferior legal status in Israel compared to other churches.

I am not supposed to prove that they did not negotiate as it is impossible for me to prove a negative, can I? What I can say however is that the Vatican has negotiated with the Israelis and accomplished some of their goals. Maybe the Greek Orthodox Church could ask the Greek government to do the same on its behalf.

Dissent within the church exists because of the issue of the land demanded by Israel and because of the persecution imposed on the church by Israel resulting to her inability to maintain the Tomb of Jesus Christ.

That's not what neither the PA's report nor Arab priests of the Church say.

The fact of the matter is that the Israeli government froze the bank accounts of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, banned entry to its leaders, directly financed the far-right groups who explicitly threatened the Patriarchs who refused to lease land to them. The Patriarch had his car rammed, his life threatened. The report confirms that the Greek church has inferior legal status to the Catholic church, further confirming the fact of ethnic & religious discrimination in Israel not just for Arabs but for Europeans as well.

The fact of the matter is that you are making this up, just like you made up that the Israeli Supreme Court did not order a reevaluation of the petition in the Katzir case without considering ethnorreligious factors in the analysis and just like you made up the mass expulsion of Greeks from Spain.

Unlike yourself who has already admitted of being dishonest, I am being very honest with you, you are refusing to answer the questions and address the arguments. Here you go again because clearly you have a bad memory:

The court ruling very explicitly recommends to the State of Israel to consider whether it can allow 2 Israeli Muslims to settle in a new exclusively Jewish neighborhood.
You are begging me to state that because of this ruling Israel is not racist when it comes to land management, but this does not follow, in fact the court itself admits that Israel is racist when it comes to land management. This is further verified by an Israeli professor, by the Israel Land Authority wiki article, by the al-Kurd family case, by the UN, the European Parliament and by the ordeals that Christians Churches like the Greek-Orthodox church have to face in Israel. I really don't get what your expectations are here.

Same bullshit again.

[noemon]

Prove Israelis threatened his life.

At least the report doesn't mention that but maybe you could enlighten me?

Look for the bold parts that you were served an hour ago:

The buyers' lawyer is a well-known Israeli, who is famous for his experience in representing the extreme right, including Arfing Moscowitz, Himont Company, Alert Cohanim, ELAD institution. All of them are well-known extreme rightists. Their members, aims and practices are known. They seek to buy Arab property within the walls of the Old City and in East Jerusalem and in various locations, with the aim of expanding Israeli control over settlement sites in Arab Jerusalem. Among the well-known cases in which he represents settlers, the lease of Saint John building in the Old City. It turned out that the Israeli government stood behind its purchase, and paid for it from the budget of the Ministry of Housing. The buyers’ lawyers have strong and diversified relations with political circles from the Right wing which support his clients.

Papadimas knew the buyers’ lawyer ever since he began his work. We did not know who the medium between them was. We did not know the background of the meeting or the introduction that took place.

The relationship between the buyers’ lawyer and Papadimas was so strong that Papadimas was considered (one of the family members). He visited him frequently and consulted him in various matters (according to the buyers’ lawyer himself). The buyers’ lawyer used to visit Papadimas in his apartment in Jaffa. This relationship grew stronger in 2004. The buyers’ lawyer was seen many times in Papadimas office at the Patriarchate during the few months prior to Papadimas flight. The buyers’ lawyer visits to that Patriarchate did not draw the attention of any of the officials at the Patriarchate.

At the end of the meeting, Mr. Cohen revealed that he had close and strong connections with Israeli government quarters, which he can manipulate to advance the interest of the Patriarchate before them, including the attempt to initiate the conclusion of an agreement to put the Patriarchate on equal footing with those of the Vatican in terms of the legal status of its institutions. Nearly two weeks later, the Patriarch paid a visit to the newly appointed Al-Qishleh Police Chief Yoram Halevi Levi to congratulate him on his new post. The Patriarch was accompanied by group of bishops and priests. On emerging from this meeting the Patriarch was again approached by Mr. Cohen, who “happened” to be there. He greeted him and reminded him of himself and their previous encounter. He then informed him that he had talked with an expert advocate who is very well connected with various influential Israeli government quarters. He then expressed his willingness to arrange a meeting between the Patriarch and that advocate.

A week later, Mr. Cohen called the Patriarch and invited him to a meeting at the King David Hotel where they met. The Patriarch was accompanied by two priests who arrived recently from Greece. Mr. Cohen introduced the Patriarch to the advocate who turned out to be none other than the advocate of the buyers. That was his first encounter with the buyers’ advocate, whom he had never known before, and who (the advocate) identified himself as “Etan”.

This name did not attract the attention or wonder of the Patriarch or his escorts. The buyers’ advocate disclosed to the Patriarch all the information he had about the Patriarch and his knowledge of his predecessors. The information disclosed indicated an extensive and comprehensive knowledge of what was and is going on within the Patriarchate.

A conversation took place between them, on one hand, and Mr. Cohen and the buyers’ advocate on the other. The advocate focused in general on what interested the Patriarch, namely, the issue of raising the status of the Patriarchate, and to initiate an agreement with the Israeli government giving the Patriarchate and its institutions the same rights stipulated in the agreement between the Vatican and the Israeli government concerning the Vatican Catholic institutions. Also, the buyers’ advocate talked about different issues for the Patriarchate and about pending issues and previous issues about the relations with the late Benediktos and about the relation with the late Diodoros.

The conversation ended with talk about arranging another meeting between them to follow up on the development of this relationship. Indeed another meeting took place. In King David Hotel and in the presence of the same persons, the lawyer called Mr. Cohen (Mati).

This name attracted the attention of one of the Patriarch’s companions (Archimandrite Ireneos) who did not know the identity of the persons whom he met during this meeting.

He recalled that the name (Mati) was mentioned in the diaries of Papadimas, which he found in the accounting office in the Patriarchate. He asked him if he was the same (Mati) who was connected with Papadimas. He affirmed his relationship with him, in addition that he had a working relationship with him, and that they concluded several contracts between them.

When asked about the nature of those contracts, he replied that they are related to long term lease of the church property. Mr. Mati did not elaborate. The priest reported the matter to the Patriarch and warned him that the persons he is meeting with are but Papadimas friends, and they may be deceiving him, consequently, he should exercise caution with them. They were told that they had no knowledge of what they were talking about, and that the Patriarch knew nothing about what they were talking, and also the Holy Synod did not endorse any document they talked about, keeping in mind that any real estate deal would not be valid unless it is ratified by the Holy Synod and signed by the Patriarch, as stipulated by the law.

This is something well known to the government circles. The Patriarchate confirmed this in writing to the officials. Such ratifications were never done and were never finalized at any time whatsoever.

The other side refused to disclose any information. They tried to pacify the Patriarch and his companions. They suggested another meeting to discuss the case of Papadimas and what he signed.

Indeed, after few days Mati (Mr. Cohen) came with another person he claimed to be Mr. Levin. During a conversation it appeared that Levin also knows a lot about the Patriarchate’s property. Mr. Levin offered his services to help Archimandrite Ireneos who was newly appointed, as head of the Financial Department, to get acquainted with the Patriarchate’s property. The Patriarch thanked him and repeated his request for information about the deals which the buyers’ advocate and Mr. Cohen claimed existed during their meeting at King David Hotel.

They repeated that unless he collaborates with them, they would not provide him with any information about the deals, yet they tried to placate and assure him and promised him to talk to the lawyer in order to settle the case.

Hardly two weeks had passed Mr. Cohen (Mati) and Mr. Levin had reiterated their request from the Patriarch and the Archimandrite. To cooperate with them to conclude the deals, Levin threatened that unless the Patriarch cooperates with them, a grave thing will happen. Once again, the Patriarch insisted on his unwillingness to talk about or enter into any negotiations regarding any deal with Papadimas. He insisted upon seeing the document. The response was that the Patriarch had until March 17, 2005 to decide, otherwise, “an atomic bomb” will fall at the Patriarch’s court. Indeed, on March 17, 2005, they called the Patriarch and renewed their warning. They gave him until 5 pm to respond or “the bomb will explode”.

And not only Israel has a right but a duty to properly administer and take care of major holy sites like those owned by the several churches in Jerusalem.

Are you saying that Israel has a duty to ban Greek-Orthodox Priests from entering the country and that it has a duty to freeze the bank accounts of the Custodians of the Tomb of Jesus Christ? These are hateful acts, and since you defend these hateful acts, you can only be rationalised as a hateful person.

So according to you freezing the accounts of institutions (be they religious, firms, associations, etc) under investigation over allegations that criminal activity took place is not a standard procedure?

Evidence of legal charges being brought against the Patriarch in Israel. If all states froze the accounts of Archbishops in their jurisdictions based on abstract allegations, Jewish synagogues would have their accounts permanently frozen as would other companies. There is something called due-process in normal countries. You should look it up.

I am not supposed to prove that they did not negotiate as it is impossible for me to prove a negative, can I?

So you admit that your claim is dishonest. You claimed that it is the Greek-Orthodox church's fault who has not allegedly approached Israel to update her legal status and bring it in line with other Christian churches.

You need to provide evidence for that and also you need to explain in what sort of country do Churches have to individually negotiate their legal rights. In Europe the principle of religious freedom and equal status before the law applies automatically. This is clearly not the case in Israel and that is exactly what you have been denying all along.

The fact of the matter is that you are making this up.....Bullshit

Bullshit is indeed perfect to describe your behaviour.

I have provided sources for all that and will keep on posting them until you address them:

The fact of the matter is that the Israeli government froze the bank accounts of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, banned entry to its leaders, directly financed the far-right groups who explicitly threatened the Patriarchs who refused to lease land to them. The Patriarch had his car rammed, his life threatened. The report confirms that the Greek church has inferior legal status to the Catholic church, further confirming the fact of ethnic & religious discrimination in Israel not just for Arabs but for Europeans as well.

Unlike yourself who has already admitted of being dishonest, I am being very honest with you, you are refusing to answer the questions and address the arguments. Here you go again because clearly you have a bad memory:

The court ruling very explicitly recommends to the State of Israel to consider whether it can allow 2 Israeli Muslims to settle in a new exclusively Jewish neighborhood.
You are begging me to state that because of this ruling Israel is not racist when it comes to land management, but this does not follow, in fact the court itself admits that Israel is racist when it comes to land management. This is further verified by an Israeli professor, by the Israel Land Authority wiki article, by the al-Kurd family case, by the UN, the European Parliament and by the ordeals that Christians Churches like the Greek-Orthodox church have to face in Israel. I really don't get what your expectations are here.

[wat0n]

Look for the bold parts that you were served an hour ago:

The buyers' lawyer is a well-known Israeli, who is famous for his experience in representing the extreme right, including Arfing Moscowitz, Himont Company, Alert Cohanim, ELAD institution. All of them are well-known extreme rightists. Their members, aims and practices are known. They seek to buy Arab property within the walls of the Old City and in East Jerusalem and in various locations, with the aim of expanding Israeli control over settlement sites in Arab Jerusalem. Among the well-known cases in which he represents settlers, the lease of Saint John building in the Old City. It turned out that the Israeli government stood behind its purchase, and paid for it from the budget of the Ministry of Housing. The buyers’ lawyers have strong and diversified relations with political circles from the Right wing which support his clients.

Papadimas knew the buyers’ lawyer ever since he began his work. We did not know who the medium between them was. We did not know the background of the meeting or the introduction that took place.

The relationship between the buyers’ lawyer and Papadimas was so strong that Papadimas was considered (one of the family members). He visited him frequently and consulted him in various matters (according to the buyers’ lawyer himself). The buyers’ lawyer used to visit Papadimas in his apartment in Jaffa. This relationship grew stronger in 2004. The buyers’ lawyer was seen many times in Papadimas office at the Patriarchate during the few months prior to Papadimas flight. The buyers’ lawyer visits to that Patriarchate did not draw the attention of any of the officials at the Patriarchate.

At the end of the meeting, Mr. Cohen revealed that he had close and strong connections with Israeli government quarters, which he can manipulate to advance the interest of the Patriarchate before them, including the attempt to initiate the conclusion of an agreement to put the Patriarchate on equal footing with those of the Vatican in terms of the legal status of its institutions. Nearly two weeks later, the Patriarch paid a visit to the newly appointed Al-Qishleh Police Chief Yoram Halevi Levi to congratulate him on his new post. The Patriarch was accompanied by group of bishops and priests. On emerging from this meeting the Patriarch was again approached by Mr. Cohen, who “happened” to be there. He greeted him and reminded him of himself and their previous encounter. He then informed him that he had talked with an expert advocate who is very well connected with various influential Israeli government quarters. He then expressed his willingness to arrange a meeting between the Patriarch and that advocate.

A week later, Mr. Cohen called the Patriarch and invited him to a meeting at the King David Hotel where they met. The Patriarch was accompanied by two priests who arrived recently from Greece. Mr. Cohen introduced the Patriarch to the advocate who turned out to be none other than the advocate of the buyers. That was his first encounter with the buyers’ advocate, whom he had never known before, and who (the advocate) identified himself as “Etan”.

This name did not attract the attention or wonder of the Patriarch or his escorts. The buyers’ advocate disclosed to the Patriarch all the information he had about the Patriarch and his knowledge of his predecessors. The information disclosed indicated an extensive and comprehensive knowledge of what was and is going on within the Patriarchate.

A conversation took place between them, on one hand, and Mr. Cohen and the buyers’ advocate on the other. The advocate focused in general on what interested the Patriarch, namely, the issue of raising the status of the Patriarchate, and to initiate an agreement with the Israeli government giving the Patriarchate and its institutions the same rights stipulated in the agreement between the Vatican and the Israeli government concerning the Vatican Catholic institutions. Also, the buyers’ advocate talked about different issues for the Patriarchate and about pending issues and previous issues about the relations with the late Benediktos and about the relation with the late Diodoros.

The conversation ended with talk about arranging another meeting between them to follow up on the development of this relationship. Indeed another meeting took place. In King David Hotel and in the presence of the same persons, the lawyer called Mr. Cohen (Mati).

This name attracted the attention of one of the Patriarch’s companions (Archimandrite Ireneos) who did not know the identity of the persons whom he met during this meeting.

He recalled that the name (Mati) was mentioned in the diaries of Papadimas, which he found in the accounting office in the Patriarchate. He asked him if he was the same (Mati) who was connected with Papadimas. He affirmed his relationship with him, in addition that he had a working relationship with him, and that they concluded several contracts between them.

When asked about the nature of those contracts, he replied that they are related to long term lease of the church property. Mr. Mati did not elaborate. The priest reported the matter to the Patriarch and warned him that the persons he is meeting with are but Papadimas friends, and they may be deceiving him, consequently, he should exercise caution with them. They were told that they had no knowledge of what they were talking about, and that the Patriarch knew nothing about what they were talking, and also the Holy Synod did not endorse any document they talked about, keeping in mind that any real estate deal would not be valid unless it is ratified by the Holy Synod and signed by the Patriarch, as stipulated by the law.

This is something well known to the government circles. The Patriarchate confirmed this in writing to the officials. Such ratifications were never done and were never finalized at any time whatsoever.

The other side refused to disclose any information. They tried to pacify the Patriarch and his companions. They suggested another meeting to discuss the case of Papadimas and what he signed.

Indeed, after few days Mati (Mr. Cohen) came with another person he claimed to be Mr. Levin. During a conversation it appeared that Levin also knows a lot about the Patriarchate’s property. Mr. Levin offered his services to help Archimandrite Ireneos who was newly appointed, as head of the Financial Department, to get acquainted with the Patriarchate’s property. The Patriarch thanked him and repeated his request for information about the deals which the buyers’ advocate and Mr. Cohen claimed existed during their meeting at King David Hotel.

They repeated that unless he collaborates with them, they would not provide him with any information about the deals, yet they tried to placate and assure him and promised him to talk to the lawyer in order to settle the case.

Hardly two weeks had passed Mr. Cohen (Mati) and Mr. Levin had reiterated their request from the Patriarch and the Archimandrite. To cooperate with them to conclude the deals, Levin threatened that unless the Patriarch cooperates with them, a grave thing will happen. Once again, the Patriarch insisted on his unwillingness to talk about or enter into any negotiations regarding any deal with Papadimas. He insisted upon seeing the document. The response was that the Patriarch had until March 17, 2005 to decide, otherwise, “an atomic bomb” will fall at the Patriarch’s court. Indeed, on March 17, 2005, they called the Patriarch and renewed their warning. They gave him until 5 pm to respond or “the bomb will explode”.

And yet the car ramming incident took place on November 2004, while the threat was issued on March 17 of 2005.

Coincidentally, that's the same day Ma'ariv published the article stating the Patriarch engaged in land deals with Israelis. You know, the very same article that led to his demotion. I guess that's what the bomb was.

Are you saying that Israel has a duty to ban Greek-Orthodox Priests from entering the country and that it has a duty to freeze the bank accounts of the Custodians of the Tomb of Jesus Christ? These are hateful acts, and since you defend these hateful acts, you can only be rationalised as a hateful person.

No, I am saying it has a duty to take care of the holy sites. Are you really going to dispute this?

Evidence of legal charges being brought against the Patriarch in Israel. If all states froze the accounts of Archbishops in their jurisdictions based on abstract allegations, Jewish synagogues would have their accounts permanently frozen as would other companies. There is something called due-process in normal countries. You should look it up.

The charges of criminal behavior were definitely raised, as stated in the article. Why do you think there was a prosecutor investigating the allegations?

So you admit that your claim is dishonest. You claimed that it is the Greek-Orthodox church's fault who has not allegedly approached Israel to update her legal status and bring it in line with other Christian churches.

You need to provide evidence for that and also you need to explain in what sort of country do Churches have to individually negotiate their legal rights. In Europe the principle of religious freedom and equal status before the law applies automatically. This is clearly not the case in Israel and that is exactly what you have been denying all along.

What does religious freedom have to do with, for example, the tax exempt status of churches? That bit is what the churches in Israel are trying to get, including the Vatican.

Care to explain how doesn't this require a negotiated process with the State to get such status?

The rest of your post is simply a restatement of your inability or unwillingness to read and properly understand the sources posted here.

[noemon]

I guess that's what the bomb was.

Most probably, so?

No, I am saying it has a duty to take care of the holy sites.

By banning the custodians of the Tomb of Jesus entry to the country and by freezing the bank accounts that maintain this Holy Site?
You have a curious understanding of protecting the Holy Sites, even if say Israel had the excuse of legal charges pressed against the Patriarch, which it didn't, it could freeze his accounts not the Church's accounts. You know in all organisations there are Vice-Presidents, Secretaries and so on, if one of them is accused of something, the organisations do not seize to function and especially this organisation which has such a sacred duty and which is the most ancient Church in the world more ancient than any Christian church and more ancient than any Jewish synagogue.

The charges of criminal behavior were definitely raised, as stated in the article. Why do you think there was a prosecutor investigating the allegations?

Bring evidence that Orthodox Priests pressed charges against the Patriarch. That is what you claimed that is what you need to prove.

What does religious freedom have to do with

With the ability to able to run the Church without being persecuted, having your accounts frozen, being threatened? Everything.

The rest of your post is simply a restatement

And it will carry on until you address it:

The fact of the matter is that the Israeli government froze the bank accounts of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, banned entry to its leaders, directly financed the far-right groups who explicitly threatened the Patriarchs who refused to lease land to them. The Patriarch had his car rammed, his life threatened. The report confirms that the Greek church has inferior legal status to the Catholic church, further confirming the fact of ethnic & religious discrimination in Israel not just for Arabs but for Europeans as well.

Unlike yourself who has already admitted of being dishonest, I am being very honest with you, you are refusing to answer the questions and address the arguments. Here you go again because clearly you have a bad memory:

The court ruling very explicitly recommends to the State of Israel to consider whether it can allow 2 Israeli Muslims to settle in a new exclusively Jewish neighborhood.
You are begging me to state that because of this ruling Israel is not racist when it comes to land management, but this does not follow, in fact the court itself admits that Israel is racist when it comes to land management. This is further verified by an Israeli professor, by the Israel Land Authority wiki article, by the al-Kurd family case, by the UN, the European Parliament and by the ordeals that Christians Churches like the Greek-Orthodox church have to face in Israel. I really don't get what your expectations are here.

[wat0n]

Most probably, so?

Then how does it prove anything regarding the car ramming incident?

By banning the custodians of the Tomb of Jesus entry to the country and by freezing the bank accounts that maintain this Holy Site?
You have a curious understanding of protecting the Holy Sites, even if say Israel had the excuse of legal charges pressed against the Patriarch, which it didn't, it could freeze his accounts not the Church's accounts. You know in all organisations there are Vice-Presidents, Secretaries and so on, if one of them is accused of something, the organisations do not seize to function and especially this organisation which has such a sacred duty and which is the most ancient Church in the world more ancient than any Christian church and more ancient than any Jewish synagogue.

Who says it ceased to function? The Patriarch simply empowered Papadimas to act on certain financial matters in his name while the inquiry went on (a power he misused according to the report).

Even worse, it is not really unique for Israel to freeze the assets of organizations (both religious and non-religious) during a criminal inquiry. For instance, Switzerland froze the assets of FIFA after the US started prosecuting Blatter and the other heads of the organization.

Likewise, it is not unique for Israel to freeze the assets of a Church while an internal conflict is being solved. No religious freedom was lost as a result.

Bring evidence that Orthodox Priests pressed charges against the Patriarch. That is what you claimed that is what you need to prove.

That's what the background section of the report suggests.

With the ability to able to run the Church without being persecuted, having your accounts frozen, being threatened? Everything.

No, with granting tax exempt status.

And it will carry on until you address it:

Indeed, you will carry on repeating the same nonsense ad-nauseam since you refuse to consider the sources.

[The Immortal Goon]

Lads, let's keep it clean. Let's not accuse each other of lying or hatred or anything. We debate ideas...

[noemon]

Then how does it prove anything regarding the car ramming incident?

You are not making any sense. Do not be scared to form structured arguments. If you have something to say just go ahead and say it.

Who says it ceased to function? The Patriarch simply empowered Papadimas to act in his name while the inquiry went on.

Papadimas was given power of attorney after the Patriarch was confirmed. You are not making any sense again.

Even worse, it is not really unique for Israel to freeze the assets of organizations (both religious and non-religious) during a criminal inquiry. For instance, Switzerland froze the assets of FIFA after the US started prosecuting Blatter and the other heads of the organization.

Likewise, it is not unique for Israel to freeze the assets of a Church while an internal conflict is being solved. No religious freedom was lost as a result.

The Ecumenical Councils of the Pan-Orthodox Synod which represents the entire Orthodox World elected both of these 2 Patriarchs which Israel refused to recognise, that means that no such internal conflict existed at any point. These were the Elected leaders as confirmed by the Pan-Orthodox Global Organisation. And it means that the State of Israel does not respect the entire Orthodox world, its structure and its decisions.

Nothing here provides any moral or legal basis for such acts of hate & disrespect towards the entire Orthodox religion which caused problems in the maintenance of the Tomb of Jesus Christ, which froze the Patriarchate's bank accounts and which forbade their leaders to enter the country and prevent them from exercising their Holy Duties.

That's what the background section of the report suggests.

Bring evidence that Orthodox priests pressed charges against their Patriarch and that they disrespected the decisions taken in Unanimity by the Pan-Orthodox Synods.

Indeed, you will carry on repeating the same nonsense ad-nauseam since you refuse to consider the sources.

I will carry on posting my arguments until you address them. Yes I will:

The fact of the matter is that the Israeli government froze the bank accounts of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, banned entry to its leaders, directly financed the far-right groups who explicitly threatened the Patriarchs who refused to lease land to them. The Patriarch had his car rammed, his life threatened. The report confirms that the Greek church has inferior legal status to the Catholic church, further confirming the fact of ethnic & religious discrimination in Israel not just for Arabs but for Europeans as well.

Unlike yourself who has already admitted of being dishonest, I am being very honest with you, you are refusing to answer the questions and address the arguments. Here you go again because clearly you have a bad memory:

The court ruling very explicitly recommends to the State of Israel to consider whether it can allow 2 Israeli Muslims to settle in a new exclusively Jewish neighborhood.
You are begging me to state that because of this ruling Israel is not racist when it comes to land management, but this does not follow, in fact the court itself admits that Israel is racist when it comes to land management. This is further verified by an Israeli professor, by the Israel Land Authority wiki article, by the al-Kurd family case, by the UN, the European Parliament and by the ordeals that Christians Churches like the Greek-Orthodox church have to face in Israel. I really don't get what your expectations are here.