Chapter Four
The Orthodox Arab Issue
in the Era of Patriarch Damianos
Introduction
Damianos was enthroned Patriarch of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the death of Patriarch Grasimos in 1897. Damianos was born in 1848 and joined the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher in 1873. He represented the Patriarchate in several missions abroad. In 1891, he was promoted to the rank of Archbishop of Philadelphia. Damianos ruled until his death on 14 August 1931. His rule was one of the longest periods of the Jerusalem patriarchs, and it was also the most turbulent period. Patriarch Damianos was a contemporary of the Young Turk Revolution, the end of the Ottoman era, and the era of the British mandate. Many political developments reflected on the Jerusalem Patriarchate. The Orthodox Arabs stood up, demanding their ecclesiastical rights after the Young Turk Revolution seized power in Istanbul. The Arabs renewed these demands during the era of the British mandate. As for the Synod, it deposed the patriarch every time he headed toward the fulfillment of the demands of the Orthodox nationals or departed from the traditional policy of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher on matters concerning the Arab community or the holy shrines, which the brotherhood viewed as a property of the Greek nation. Deposing was an effective weapon, to which the Synod resorted to deter the patriarchs, and it was earlier used with Kyrillos and Nikodemus.
Until World War I, the Arabs enjoyed the support of the Russians in their conflict with the Greeks. After the war, the Arabs lost their traditional supporters. The Patriarchate also lost the financial support offered by the Church and the Russian pilgrims. Consequently, the debts of the Patriarchate were increasing and the patriarchs were becoming confused about the means to face the collapsed and shrunken financial situation of the Patriarchate.
Undoubtedly, the arabization of the Antioch Patriarchate, which was done with Russian support in 1899, was an example to be followed by the Jerusalem Patriarchate’s laity. It was also the hope that was entertained by the Orthodox nationals. The British mandate authority played the role of arbitrator, just as the Ottoman Sultanate did whenever there were differences among the Synod, Patriarch, Greeks and Arabs. The British mandate authority, in order to manage the Patriarchate crisis, formed the first Bertram commission in 1921 and the second Bertram commission in 1925. The patriarch depended on the loyalty of the Orthodox people to him, in his struggle with the Synod. The local Orthodox laity frequently confronted the monks and often forestalled deposing of the patriarch. However, when the showdown occurred between the Orthodox Arabs and the Greeks, the patriarch and the monks stood in one trench and denied the community the opportunity to regain some of its rights. The Arabs often lost in their confrontations with the Greeks, or secured peripheral gains. The mobile and changing positions among the different partners of the ‘Orthodox Arab Issue’ characterized the era of Patriarch Damianos[1].
1- The Orthodox Arab Issue (Alqadhia al’arabia alourthodoxia) in light of the proclamation of the Ottoman Constitution in 1908.
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, several liberation movements appeared in the Ottoman Sultanate, such as the Young Turk Movement, the Ottoman Union, and the Committee of Union and Progress. These movements included personalities from the various peoples of the Ottoman Sultanate. These movements and societies had declared different perceptions for the reform of the Ottoman State, which declined to its lowest ebb in the age of Sultan Abdulhamid (1876-1909). The revolution broke out in 1908. “The Hamidi despotism was overthrown by a military force of the Committee of Union and Progress. In July 1908, Abdulhamid surrendered to the rebels, declared the restoration of the 1876 constitution, revoked the system of domination and espionage, and acquiesced to holding elections for the parliamentary assembly. The restoration of the constitution was received with extreme joy in the various parts of the empire.”[2] The parliamentary assembly (Majlis al-Mab'uthan) was elected and held its first session on 10 December 1908.
The Free Union Party and the reactionaries of Abdulhamid’s supporters led a counter-revolution on 13 April 1809. Abdulhamid himself was behind the revolution. As soon as the news of the coup reached Thessaloniki, which was the center of the Committee of Union and Progress, Mahmoud Shawkat advanced with his forces to the capital to protect the constitution by force. The Parliamentary Assembly met in San Stephano and declared the overthrow of Sultan Abdulhamid on the strength of a Fatwa by Shaykh El Islam. Muhammad V was installed as Sultan and became a ploy in the hands of the Committee of Union and Progress until 1913, when power was transferred to the hands of a tripartite military government, which continued to rule until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of Word War I.
A- Orthodox Arab Awakening.
By and large, the foregoing political events constituted the general atmosphere under which the Arabs lived following the declaration of the restoration of the constitution. They viewed the freedom that is guaranteed by the constitution as the hope for a dignified life under the Ottoman Islamic Caliphate. However, the main reason for the Orthodox Arab awakening in Palestine was article 111 of the constitution which was declared on 11 July 1908 and which stated the following:
“In each district, there shall be a council for each millet. Members of the council shall be elected from the members of the relevant millet. The functions of the millet council are to supervise revenues of its properties, investments and the waqf funds, to spend them in accordance with the conditions of the testators and by the ancient ways that been used previously, to those who are entitled to them and for charitable purposes, to supervise the funds mentioned in the wills, according to the written wills of the testators, and to administer the wealth of the orphans. All these functions are performed in accordance with the millets’ proper bylaws. The millets’ councils shall recognize the local government and the councils of the Vilayet as their reference.”[3]
The Orthodox Arabs formed an assembly of 40 members in implementation of Article 111 of the constitution. The patriarch received a delegation of the assembly on 15 September 1908. The nationalists thought that Article 111 could be applied to the Patriarchate. However, the patriarch drew their attention to the fact that the article says: ‘in accordance with the millets’ proper bylaws’, and added that the bylaws of the Patriarchate do not allow the formation of such a council. The patriarch suggested the formation of a joint committee to discuss the implementation of Article 111.
The committee held several meetings. In one of these meetings held on 1 October 1908, the Arab committee members submitted 18 demands for the reform of the overall conditions of the Patriarchate. Among the demands was the implementation of the circular of Patriarch Ierotheos, known as the book of the constitution ‘Katastatikon’. Following lengthy consultations, the patriarch agreed to the formation of a mixed committee to look into the issues of the Patriarchate, provided that the committee meets under the chairmanship of the dragoman of the Patriarchate. Although the committee was formed, it did not hold any meetings.[4] Nonetheless, Khoury has reported that agreement was reached to form a mixed council. However, the Synod regretted it and refused to form the council.[5]
The nationalists reacted with fury and submitted a petition to the patriarch, which was in the form of a final ultimatum demanding the formation of the mixed council exactly as was the case of the Constantinople Church. The ultimatum also demanded the implementation of Article 111. The patriarch turned down their request. Therefore, they threatened him that they would stage a demonstration on St. James Day on 23 October protesting the rejection of their demands and the despotism of the monks.
The Synod held a session and made some concessions to the Arabs, such as to pay 3,000 liras to the community to pay the rent of the homes, to add two members of the nationals to the schools’ administration, and to elect a joint committee to view some of the secondary issues of the Patriarchate. However, the nationalists refused the offer of the Synod, and protests and demonstrations were staged in Jaffa and Bethlehem, and the churches were closed down. The patriarch sent a letter to Al-Sadr Al-Azam ( the Grand Vizier), Kamil Pasha, explaining the critical conditions of the Patriarchate and demanding the application of the privileges granted to the Patriarchate as contained in the Arab and Ottoman firmans. He pointed out that Article 111 couldn’t be implemented in Palestine because the Church waqf property did not belong to the Arab Orthodox community, but were public awqaf contributed by all the Orthodox of the world. The Brotherhood sent a delegation to the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria to explain the nature of the events in the Patriarchate.
B -Patriarchal dissent: the conflict between the Synod and the patriarch and the deposing of the patriarch.
By and large, the foregoing events and the clash between the Greek and Arab elements were behind the insubordination of the Synod and its deposing of the patriarch. Historians differed on the main reason for the deposing. It was said that the Synod deposed the patriarch because he conceded one third of the revenues of the Patriarchate to a mixed council. In the view of the monks, this was tantamount to a betrayal of their cause.[6] The Synod also viewed the patriarch as non-qualified to stand in the way of the current of the national awakening. In fact, it found the patriarch inclined to the nationals because of his recurrent meetings with their notables.[7] Qazaqya notes that the patriarch did not “heed the demands of the monks and did not approve their desires in order to protect his authority and rights. Therefore, the monks decided to depose him without the approval of the people, and they did so without notifying the people so as not to give the national community the right to interfere in the affairs of the Patriarchate.”[8] Meanwhile, Bertram identified the reason for the deposing of the patriarch on the ground that the Synod was not satisfied with the method by which the patriarch managed the crisis.[9] Therefore, the Synod, and the monks behind it, decided to depose the patriarch. The people supported the patriarch in his ordeal so that they would not lose their rights and the Brotherhood would decide the fate of the patriarch without the people or the fate of the people without the patriarch.
The Synod found in the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria its best supporters because they were eager to protect and keep the Greek hegemony in the Eastern patriarchates. An archimandrite did a round to the monks’ cells on the night of 13 December 1908 and explained to them the danger that the patriarch posed to them. So they sent him a warning to resign or they would depose him. However, he refused to resign. Therefore, the Synod held a session on the next day under the chairmanship of the patriarch. The monks offered the patriarch to resign. However, he refused to sign the minutes of the meetings. Thus, the Synod made the decision to depose him. Meletios Metaxakis wrote down the decision of the deposing. Archimandrite Keladion conveyed the decision to the patriarch. Metaxakis informed the government of the decision of deposing. The decision of deposing and the notification of the government were not based on a valid synodical act. The Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria endorsed the Synod’s decision of deposing, and the Synod elected a Topoteretes (patriarchal administrator), the bishop of Tiberias, Meletios, and threatened Damianos that if he would not comply with the deposing (pavis) decision, he would face a harsher decision, namely, defrocking (kathairesis). However, Damianos cling to his post.
The government did not recognize the Topoteretes as new patriarch. In other words, in the view of the government, Damianos was still the legitimate patriarch. On 21 January 1909, however, the government recognized him. This recognition implicitly meant that Damianos was deposed. Thus the people confronted the decision, and demonstrations were staged in various Palestinian cities with Christians and Muslims equally participating in the demonstrations.[10]
The nationalists figured out that the Brotherhood’s monopoly to depose the patriarch was an infringement on their rights and hegemony over their destiny. The patriarch took his case to Istanbul and demanded the dispatch of an investigation commission. His request was granted. The commission met on 26 January 1909 with the monks and the notables of the nationals, who were furious at the deposing of the patriarch. At the recommendation of the commission, the government ordered that the patriarch and Metaxakis, chief clerk of the Synod, and Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, the superintendent of the patriarchal schools, travel to Istanbul to meet the officials there. The patriarch abstained while the two delegates left. They left Palestine under the escort of the Ottoman soldiers as a protection of their lives from the furious people.
A delegation representing the Orthodox Palestinians had traveled to Istanbul to meet with the officials there to protest against the deposing of the patriarch and to demand their ecclesiastical rights in accordance with Article 111 of the constitution. The delegation submitted a petition containing its demands. The delegation, which arrived in Istanbul in early 1909 and stayed there until June 1909, was involved in the talks and negotiations held among the representatives of the monks Metaxakis and Chrysostomos and others, and the representatives of the nationals and the Constantinople and Alexandria Patriarchs, and the Ottoman officials. It should be recalled in this connection that the foregoing two patriarchs were in Istanbul. Dozens of cables were exchanged among Istanbul, Jerusalem and Alexandria, but Damianos did not bend to the pressure of the monks and the threats of the patriarchs. The whole people were supporting him and were staging demonstrations while the churches were closed down to protest his deposing.
Finally the patriarch reconciled with the Synod, which sent a cable on 8 June 1909 to the Ecumenical Patriarch informing him that the situation had returned to normal between the patriarch and the monks. The nationalists postponed demanding their rights for sometime until the crisis of the patriarchal sedition was over. The Palestinian delegation returned home in October 1909 and was warmly received by the people. But the only things it carried with it were ambiguous Ottoman promises that justice would be done to them and that the demands of the people they represented would be looked into.
C –The reply of the Ottoman government to the demands of the Orthodox Arabs:
The general situation continued to be tense in Jerusalem following the patriarch’s reconciliation with the Synod. The nationalists refused to open the churches in anticipation of the government reply to their demands. What made things worse was that Metaxakis published in the Istanbul newspapers on October 1909 an article in French and Greek entitled ‘The demands of the Orthodox Arabophones of Palestine.’ The article cast doubt on the Arab demands, replied to them and refuted the claims of the local Orthodox,[11] namely, the creation of the local council according to Article 111 and the mixed council, acceptance of the Arabs in the Brotherhood, the stay of the bishops in their bishopric centers. The nationalists knew about the article; demonstrations erupted in all parts of Palestine. The nationalists occupied four monasteries and insisted that the government declare its reply to their demands. Finally, the Ottoman Commission, which was formed to look into the demands of the Arabs, declared the government’s reply on 17 May 1910. The reply was in favor of the Greek clergy. The Arabs won only certain peripheral gains. The answer was ambiguous and could be interpreted in several ways. There were 11 Arab demands, including six basic demands, and five other demands of lesser importance. The reply, in brief, was as follows.[12]
1- The Millet Council will be formed in accordance with Article 111. However, there is no waqf property that is within the jurisdiction of this council, because the waqf of the Patriarchate, in the view of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, is a non-national property and is the property of world Orthodoxy.
2- The formation of a mixed council under the chairmanship of the patriarch consisting of six members of the laity and six clerics: The powers of the council are restricted to some ecclesiastical matters, such as the issues of marriage, trusteeship and supervision of the charitable institutions and schools. As for the holy shrines, they are outside the jurisdiction of the council. One third of the Patriarchate’s revenues, estimated then at 30,000 liras, will be appropriated for the council.
3- The Patriarchate does not refuse the admission of Arabs to the Brotherhood and has never precluded them from doing so at any time in the past. As for the question of accepting candidates, it is part of the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate, not the mixed council.
4- Increased participation by the people in the election of the patriarch was turned down. The functions of the Synod should be restricted to spiritual matters and to admitting the parish priests to the Synod will be accepted.
5- The bishops are not staying in their sees in the Jerusalem Patriarchate because of their special bylaws and because these bishops are titular ones only. However, the Patriarchate had no objections if the bishops resided in their sees. The request that the people elect bishops was turned down, because their election was one of the rights vested in the Synod.
6- Barring monks from engagement in worldly works and refraining from granting concessions to one over the other among the Orthodox Ottomans are matters that will be looked into.
7- Refrained from changing the old concessions bestowed on the monks and confirmed by the firmans. The request of forbidding non-Ottomans to enter the monastic order will be accepted.
8- The method of election will continue as it is in the bylaws. The law does not mention anything about any party or body that has the power to depose or topple the patriarch. The regulations will continue to be in force as they were in the past.
9- The request to unify the revenues of the Patriarchate and to publish an annual statement of these revenues shall be turned down.
10- The request for the participation of an Arab chorus at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and other holy shrines shall be turned down. The privileges granted to the Arab community on this question should remain as they are.
11- This ambiguous answer was given concerning the request to register the waqf property in the name of the national community -local Arab Orthodox-: “This matter dictates the amendment of the laws in force concerning the registration of a property in the name of a legal person and to proceed accordingly. Whenever the necessary amendments are introduced, these waqf properties would be registered in the name of whom it pertains to. If it belongs to the convents, holy shrines and churches, they could be registered accordingly. If it was intended for a specific purpose, such as the benefit of the public, it could be registered in the name of the national community. As for now, there is no need to take measures or action in this regard other than the arrangements that are in force.”[13] In other words, the registration of the waqf property in the name of the national community was rejected.
It also seemed from the government’s reply that all the applications, which could lead to the Brotherhood’s loss of its Greek nature or to place the Patriarchate under the control of the laity, have been turned down. In any case, the Arabs won the Mixed Council and one third of the revenues of the Patriarchate. The government reply was viewed as a law amending the articles of the Law of 1875 or an interpretation or an annex to it. Meletios, the archbishop of Jordan, announced on behalf of the Patriarchate, the acceptance of the government’s decision at a meeting of the Jerusalem district governor’s office on 29 May 1910. The necessary measures were taken to form the Mixed Council. A law of 12 articles was endorsed for the Mixed Council. One of the articles stipulated that an amount of 200 liras was allocated to each member. The Mixed Council held its first meeting on 9 December 1910.
It seems that peace was again overshadowing the Jerusalem Church. Nonetheless, some churches remained closed, including St. James church. By its closure, it blocked the road leading from the Patriarchate to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Controversy and discord erupted among the members of the Council, and behind them the Brotherhood and a group of the Orthodox nationals on the interpretation of the government decision. Differences also erupted among the clergy and national laity on the awqaf and the budget, and this hampered the necessary decisions in the council. Even if these decisions were made, they needed to be enforced. This situation had compelled the government to intercede again in 1913 between the clergy and the national laity. St. James church remained closed until l January 1914 when the patriarch held Mass there. As for the Brotherhood, it was reconciled with the patriarch, and members of the Brotherhood commended the patriarch at the Synod meeting on 21 August 1917, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of his enthronement. However, the reconciliation was not genuine. Destiny was hiding another surprise for the patriarch. The Brotherhood resumed the drive to depose him during his involuntary absence from his see.
2- The Jerusalem Patriarchate in World War I and the renewal of deposing the patriarch in 1918.
Turkey entered the war against Britain in 1914. The British occupied Palestine in 1917. The Ottoman army withdrew and the heads of the non-Muslim millets were deported with it to Damascus. These included Patriarch Damianos and the Synod members in November 1917. During the absence of the patriarch and the Synod, an administrative committee of the Archimandrites ran the Patriarchate. The committee summoned the archbishop of Sinai, Profirios, to head the liturgical celebrations. Debts accumulated on the Patriarchate before and during the war and reached a point that could threaten a financial crisis with grave consequences. The Brotherhood held a session on 3 May 1918 during which it decided to place the Patriarchate under the trusteeship of the Greek government so as to pay back its debts. Another reason for the decision was that the Brotherhood was fearful of the loss of its rights and privileges in Palestine due to the successive political developments. Thus the idea of the trusteeship was some kind of a precautionary measure to protect the patriarchal presence, the Greek entity, and the privileges of the Brotherhood in Palestine. The Greek Consul in Egypt came to Jerusalem on 23 July 1918 and met with the monks and it was decided to place the Patriarchate under Greek trusteeship, to renew the deposing of Damianos and the appointment of the Archbishop of Sinai, Profirios, as Topoteretes (patriarchal vicar).
The Brotherhood submitted its decision to the British mandate government, accusing Damianos of having a pro- Ottoman approach, that he was a cruel and despotic man, and that he was to blame for the accumulation of the debts on the Patriarchate because of his mismanagement. The British mandate government approved the appointment of Profirios as patriarchal vicar, but insisted that he should be addressed in the official correspondence with the Latin title ‘Locum tenens’, which means patriarchal vicar, irrespective of whether the patriarch is in office or not. In other words, this title did not presume that the patriarchal see was vacant. The government, however, refused to address him with the Greek title ‘Topoteretes’, which means a patriarchal vicar whenever the see was vacant. This meant that Damianos, who was forcibly deported to Damascus, was deposed, so as to protect the rights of the patriarch, which the Brotherhood dismissed during his absence.
The Brotherhood held a meeting on 19 September 1919 and renewed the deposing of Damianos and officially appointed Profirios as Topoteretes Patriarchal Vicar. The monks thought that by doing so, they were going along with the policy of the British mandate. The people protested against the attitude of the Brotherhood. They viewed the Greek trusteeship, the anticipated Greek loan to the Patriarchate and the deposing of the patriarch during his absence as an infringement on their national rights.
Meanwhile, the British mandate government allowed some Synod deportees in Damascus to return to Jerusalem at the recommendation of the vicar. The returnees signed a second decision dismissing their patriarch. Finally, General Allenby allowed the return of the patriarch, who arrived in Jerusalem on 9 December 1919. On the same day, he headed the meeting of the Synod, which offered him loyalty and obedience. The patriarch who was the target of deposing for the second time presided over the Christmas celebrations in Bethlehem. The Synod and the patriarch were reconciled once again. However, the questions of trusteeship and the Greek loan continued to be unresolved. The Synod raised these two questions, and a third attempt was made to depose the patriarch.
3- The crisis of the patriarchal debts and Bertram’s first report in 1921.
The representative of the Greek bank arrived in Jerusalem on 27 August 1919 to negotiate with the Patriarchate for an offer of a loan to repay its debts at an interest rate of 3 per cent, provided that the Patriarchate should mortgage its immovable property to the bank. The bank representative submitted a list of bylaws to the Patriarchate, which were a new version of the constituent law of 1875. One of the articles of the submitted law called for the trial of the patriarch before a jury consisting of the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Cyprus and a delegate of the Greek government if a difference erupted between the patriarch and the Synod. Another article discussed the deposing of the patriarch. The patriarch and seven Synod archimandrites rejected the proposed loan and the law. Meanwhile, seven bishops and two archimandrites welcomed it. The Synod was split between supporters and opposition. The faction supporting the loan and the law sent a protest to the foregoing Churches and to the government of Greece demanding an intervention and the trial of the patriarch. They leveled 15 charges against him in a letter addressed by the bishops to them.[14] The British mandate government rejected the conditions of the Greek loan and offered the Synod that it could secure a loan from a British bank. However, the Synod did not manage to secure the loan. On 27 July 1920, the Synod held a meeting in which the bishops opposing the authority of the patriarch made a frank declaration breaking off their relations with the patriarch.
The differences between the patriarch and the Synod grew deeper, and this prompted the British mandate government to form an arbitration commission headed by Sir Anton Bertram, chief justice of the Bahamas and Ceylon, and the following as members: Assistant Governor of Jerusalem Sir Harry Luke and two representatives from the Orthodox laity, Yacoub Farraj and George Siksek. The committee held its first meeting on 5 January 1921 at the premises of the Patriarchate and continued its meetings for three months more, after which it presented a 336-page report containing eight appendices. The most important points in the report were the following:[15]
- The constituent law of 1875 of the Jerusalem Church and the customs observed in the Eastern Churches do not permit the Eastern patriarchates and the government of Greece the right of intervention by arbitration between the patriarch and the Synod. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, by virtue of its primacy, has a quasi right to intervene, if it is requested to do so.
- The bishops of the Jerusalem Synod are not entitled to speak on behalf of the Jerusalem Church because they do not constitute a real Synod like the remaining Church Synods. The reason for this is that they are titular bishops. The ruling body of the Orthodox Church is not the Synod, but the ‘patriarch in the Synod.’
- If we assume that the ruling body of the Church is the Synod, the bishops who submitted the objection did not represent the Jerusalem Church. They were only nine members of a total of 16 members. Therefore, the protest submitted to the Orthodox Churches is rejected because it was presented by only part of the Synod. Meanwhile, the constituent law did not give the Synod the power to depose or sue the patriarch.
- The British mandate government rejected the law that was submitted by the representatives of the Greek bank, because it constituted an addition to the constituent law. The British mandate government viewed Damianos as the legitimate head of Church.
- It was also of the belief that the best means to overcome the current crisis was to enact a law stipulating that the Synod commission consists of the Synod members who recognized the authority of the patriarch until reconciliation is forged between the patriarch and the entire body of the Synod.
- The debts owned by the Patriarchate totaled 556,000 Egyptian pounds and its annual income was 22,000 Egyptian pounds. Therefore, the British mandate government proposed the formation of a financial control commission for the liquidation of the debts. The Patriarchate may be compelled to sell some of its property and to introduce some improvements to its financial administration to control its budget and liquidate its debts. In 1921, and under the supervision of the High Commissioner, a law was enacted to form the ‘Commission for the liquidation of the Patriarchate’s debts and the management of its financial affairs.’ The law consisted of 26 articles and is known as the “Law of the Orthodox Patriarchate of 1921.” The commission worked for four years on organizing the finances of the Patriarchate and payment of its debts.
On 8 April 1921, the British High Commissioner informed the patriarch and the bishops of the decision made by the committee and instructed the bishops to reconcile with their patriarch. Since reconciliation was unexpected, Damianos decided to ordain new bishops loyal to him. He convinced Sofronios, the archbishop of Gaza, to join his party. Sofronios in turn offered loyalty and obedience to Patriarch Damianos. Since the ecclesiastical law prescribed that three bishops should ordain a bishop, Damianos agreed with a Russian Orthodox bishop in Jerusalem and with Sofronios to ordain the archimandrites loyal to him as bishops. Thus the quorum of the Synod was now complete. Another page of the dispute between the patriarch and the Synod was turned. The patriarch proved his ability and shrewdness in leading the Church in the bleakest times. He was then 73 years old. Damianos was getting ready to fight another battle with the Orthodox Arab people who stood up once again demanding their ecclesiastical rights.
4- The Orthodox Arab Issue (Alqadhia al’arabia alourthodoxia) and the second Bertram report in 1925.
The chain of events at the end of the Ottoman age and during the age of the British mandate until the Bertram first report was not in favor of the Orthodox national Arab laity. In fact, the community did not secure any of its rights. The Mixed Council was only formed for a short period of time. The goal of the commission in charge of liquidating the debts of the Patriarchate was not to work for advancing the people or restoring their rights, but to keep the financial position of the Patriarchate under control, to reduce its debts, and to supervise its budget. Thus the nationalists waited for the opportune time to demand their rights.
The incident that revived the Arab-Greek conflict was the issue of appointing a bishop for Nazareth. The bishop of Nazareth usually resides there. Following the publication of the First Bertram Report, the patriarch started dismissing the opposition bishops and ordaining new bishops loyal to him to fill the quorum of the Synod. Among the dismissed bishops was Ghelykrios, bishop of Nazareth, who was exiled to Egypt in August 1922 after having refuse to reconcile with the patriarch. A group of Nazareth residents submitted an appeal to the patriarch demanding the election of Kleopas as bishop of Nazareth in accordance with Article 17 of the Constituent Law of 1875. Another group of Nazareth residents protested against the election of Kleopas and accused the patriarch of being behind his nomination to keep him away from the membership of the commission in charge of liquidating the Patriarchate’s debts. The group also said that the nomination of Kleopas was illegal because he did not know Arabic according to the provisions of Article 15 of the Constituent Law. However, the patriarch insisted on the appointment of Kleopas. The people, in turn, viewed the action as an infringement on their rights, which were guaranteed by the Constituent Law.
The government made its own efforts to bring the conflicting views closer. The opponents of Kleopas were invited to hold a general congress. Thus the Orthodox congress was held in Haifa on 15 July 1923 and included numerous Orthodox Arab personalities. The congress issued a statement spelling out the demands of the Orthodox laity.[16] The patriarch feared the consequences of the congress. Therefore, several Greek figures addressed letters to the British government explaining the Greek nature of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the rights of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher. The letters said that the demands made by the Haifa Congress were a repetition of the traditional demands, which the Orthodox Arabs have often insisted upon. Damianos sent a memorandum to the government entitled: “Memorandum submitted by the Patriarch on the Monastic Character of Administration of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem”[17] The patriarch explained in the memorandum the monastic nature of the Patriarchate and the rights of the Brotherhood as contained in the Arab and Ottoman Firmans and the Constituent Law.
Segments of the Orthodox people protested against the decisions issued by the Haifa Congress and felt that there was some exaggeration and infringement on the rights of the Patriarchate. These segments formed a party known as the Moderate Party. Representatives of the party met in Jerusalem in October 1923 and held 23 sessions in five months, after which they issued a statement declaring their demands.[18] The Haifa Congress and the Moderate Party share the same views on several issues, such as the right of the nationals to become members of the Brotherhood and the revival of the Mixed Council. The patriarch waited until 22 July 1924 to announce his satisfaction with the Moderate Party, which he supported and backed. The party, furthermore, received his blessing because it divided the citizens into two conflicting parties. Bertram describes the attitude of Patriarch Damianos by these words: “His Beatitude has always been reputed to be a master of the maxim divide et impera.”[19]
The patriarch announced his acceptance of the demands of the Moderate Party, provided that the implementation of these demands be postponed until the improvement of the financial conditions of the Patriarchate. The patriarch also proposed the formation of the Mixed Council from the members of the Moderate Party, which constituted in his view the majority of the people. The patriarch instructed that an amount of 1,300 Egyptian pounds be allocated as expenses to the members of a Mixed Council of the Moderate Party. The then Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Haifa Congress, Yacoub Farraj, demanded that the government form a commission to look into the demands of the congress and the Arab-Greek dispute. The government agreed because of the continued concern and dispute between the patriarch and the members of the community, that had split into two parties. It is noteworthy that in one of his previous correspondences, the patriarch welcomed government intervention in principle, by saying: “Our government, to which the Patriarchate looks with an absolute loyalty and sincere devotion, and the work of which it should assist and facilitate, has the right to follow and superintend the work and the life of the Patriarchate, and in case of need to help and guide it.”[20]
The government agreed to form an arbitration committee in October 1924 under the chairmanship of Anton Bertram, the ex-chief justice of the Bahamas and Ceylon and financial advisor of the Patriarchate, and Sir J.W.A. Young, the inspector of the Egyptian interior ministry. The Commission also included some representatives of the Arab laity and the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher. The patriarch tried to block the work of the Commission, which he did not welcome, noting that its investigations would produce evil consequences. The Commission submitted its report to the High Commissioner Herbert Samuel on 26 June 1925. The 279-page report consisted of 15 chapters and eight appendices. The report discussed the reasons for the formation of the Commission, history of the Patriarchate in the previous four centuries, i.e. the Ottoman era, and the hellenization of the Patriarchate during the reign of Patriarch Germanos. It also exposed the nature of the Patriarchate, its conditions, its relationships with the community and the demands of the two parties. The report also discussed the right of the government to intervene in the dispute, the current attitude of the Patriarchate, the awqaf and the Mixed Council, and the question of allowing the Orthodox Arabs to join the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, the election of the bishops and the ecclesiastical courts and the revision of the constituent law. The report submitted the views of the Arabs and Greeks and often presented the views of the Commission. Neither the Greeks nor the Arabs accepted the solutions proposed by the government or the amendment of the Constituent Law.
The situation continued to be turbulent. The council existed only nominally and the Brotherhood was restricted to the Greeks. The intellectuals and leaders of the Orthodox people witnessed the deterioration of the conditions of their Church, the corruption of its management, and the difficulty of reform. One of these intellectuals and thinkers was Khalil al-Sakakini (1878-1953) who was a contemporary of the events of the Patriarchate in the Ottoman, British and Jordanian eras. He offered tragic solutions to the thorny Orthodox Arab question:
“If the community is now seeking to demand its rights from the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, I will try, from this very minute, to reach a farther goal, namely, to expel this Brotherhood from the country and to purge the Jerusalem See from their corruption and wrongdoing. The goal I am seeking to achieve is to remove the yoke of the Greeks, because they have no right to the presidency, whether ecclesiastically, politically or morally. Had they done their duties properly by loving and caring for us, or had they displayed a good attitude toward us? we would have accepted their leading role. However, they have despised us and sunk deep into their lust. Therefore, we are not to blame for discarding them or working for their expulsion.”[21] Finally, al-Sakakini abdicated Orthodoxy and acquitted himself from it, and therefore the Church excommunicated him.
As for Damianos, he clung to his office and led the Church despite all the difficulties which stood in his way. He died on 14 August 1931 at the age of 83. After his death, the Arabs refused to participate in the election of a new patriarch on the basis of the 1874 Law because it guaranteed (the winning of 250 Greek monks for the 50,000 Orthodox laity members in 1956) for the Greeks the lion’s share in the election of the patriarch and the appointment of bishops and the administration of the Patriarchate. The Jerusalem See was vacant for a period of four years. A patriarchal administrator ran the Patriarchate during these years. The British mandate government issued in 1934 a new amendment to the Constituent Law. The Arabs and the Greeks rejected the amendment. Finally, the Greek clergy elected Timotheos Themelis to the post of Patriarch of Jerusalem on 1 July 1935. The British mandate government waited for four more years to officially confirm the new patriarch. The British mandate over Palestine ended in 1948 without achieving any significant progress in the ‘Orthodox Arab Issue’. The solution of this issue remained the hope of all the Orthodox because it was, and remains, a public national question.
Conclusion
The Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarchate is regarded as one of the oldest Churches in Palestine and has the largest number of followers. It is the richest in terms of the Waqf property it owns, the least responsive to the desires of its laity, and the most conservative in upholding traditions and regulations. It was expected to become the ‘Mother of Churches’ and the pioneer of the awakening of its faithful through its cultural and charitabel institutions. It was expected that the Church would involve them gradually in playing their leading role in the Church. The problems that can be seen in this Church were the control by the Greek clergy in the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher of its resources, higher posts, holy shrines and waqf. The internal struggle tore up its fabric and paralyzed its capabilities. This has prompted many of its faithful to abandon it and to join the Catholic or the Anglican Church.
So we can conclude that Patriarch Kyrillos transferred the place of his stay from Istanbul to Jerusalem to free himself from traditional subservience to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to resist Catholic and Anglican infiltration of Palestine. This development was done with the support and blessing of the Russians. The Greek Orthodox Church, or the governing body of the Church, was a Church of holy shrines and monasteries, because its activity was focused on the Holy Places. The people, who played a peripheral role in ecclesiastical life, particularly in the rural areas and the villages, were neglected. The long-term goal of Russian influence in the nineteenth century until World War I was to resist the Greek influence in the Eastern patriarchates and to free them from Greek hegemony. The Russians managed to achieve their role in Syria and failed in Palestine as the Greeks upheld their posts with all their might. The Russians contributed to the formation of the Arab nationalist awareness in general and the ecclesiastical Orthodox awareness in particular.
However, we cannot say that the Russians were the only reason for the emergence of the ‘Orthodox Arab Issue.’ The Russians helped in educating the laity and raising the Orthodox youth over a period of one quarter of a century through the schools of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. The Russians have also led a generation of Orthodox nationalists in their showdown with the Greeks at the end of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. A bitter conflict erupted between the Synod and the patriarchs, which often led to deposing these patriarchs each time the Synod felt that their policies or attitudes constituted a danger to their privileges. The Synod dismissed three Patriarchs: Kyrillos, Nikodemus and Damianos. However, the two parties fought in one trench to confront the Arab nationalists. The civil authorities which ruled Palestine, namely the Ottoman Sultanate, the British mandate government and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, acted as arbitrators in the conflicts between the Synod and the patriarchs and between the Greeks and the Arabs. The Greeks usually won the round over the Arabs, who won some concessions and secondary legal amendments. The first legislation pertaining to the Orthodox Patriarchate was issued in 1875. This legislation served as the Constituent Law of the Patriarchate until 1958. It was followed by several legislations and amendments in 1910, 1921, 1925, 1934 and 1957. By and large, these laws remained ink on paper, because the Orthodox Arab presence did not constitute a sufficient weight and was not given an appropriate political support by the ruling authorities to introduce the basic amendments to the entity of the Patriarchate.
The final phases of the Arab-Greek conflict and the last chapters of the Orthodox Arab issue took place during the era of the Jordanian government. The government had to intervene to arbitrate in the differences that existed in the Church just as the Ottoman sultanate and the British mandate government.
Six Greek bishops were ordained before the death of Patriarch Timotheos Themelis on 31 December 1955 so that the Synod would reach its quorum in case a patriarch had to be elected. A Greek bishop was appointed for the city of Amman, which again brought the Greek-Arab differences to the brim and the reviving of the Orthodox Arab issue once again. A general Orthodox congress was held in Jerusalem on 23 March 1956, which included 300 Orthodox figures from Jordan and Palestine. The participants in the congress demanded the resumption of the Mixed Council, which the Ottomans promised to form in 1910, together with a greater participation of the laity. They also demanded that an Arab committee take over one third of the revenues of the Patriarchate. The one third of the revenues was estimated at about 30,000 Jordanian dinars. They also demanded that the Arabs really participate in the election of the patriarch, not as it was stated in the Constituent Law and that the nationalists be allowed to join the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher.
The congress formed an executive committee of 18 members, nine from Jordan and nine from Palestine. The duty of the committee was to convey the decisions of the congress to the Jordanian government and to work for their implementation. Meanwhile, the Synod convinced the government to issue a decision on the election of a patriarch to succeed the late Patriarch Timotheos Themelis. However, the executive committee challenged the decision at the Court of Appeals and stopped it. Therefore, the Jordanian government under Prime Minister Sleiman al-Naboulsi adopted the recommendation of the Jerusalem congress. A constituent law was enacted for the Orthodox Church and was announced on 23 December 1956. The parliament endorsed the law on 29 January 1957. On that day, the new Patriarch Benedictos Papadopoulos was elected.
The 1957 law[22] was in line with the recommendations issued by the congress. It paved the way to form the Mixed Council of 12 lay members and six clergy, handing over one third of the revenues of the Patriarchate to a committee of the laity, giving the amount of 2,200 Jordanian dinars to the ‘Jerusalem Congress Committee’ to spend on the Church’s poor and widows, and to work for the election of two Arab bishops for Jerusalem and Amman. In June 1957, the government of Prime Minister Sleiman al-Naboulsi fell. The government of Prime Minister Samir al-Refai, in collaboration with the Patriarchate, revoked the 1957 law. A new law was enacted on 1 June 1958 consisting of nine chapters and 35 articles. The new law was to the advantage of the Greeks and squandered the rights of the Arabs, which they managed to obtain in the 1957 law. It is the 1958 law, which governs currently the Orthodox Patriarchate. According to this law, an amount of 2,200 Jordan dinars will be spent as explained in the previous law. It also stipulated that the Mixed Council should consist of five clerics and eight of the Orthodox laity and that the absolute majority of voting should be out of nine votes. It also demanded that the Mixed Council might participate in the preliminary phases of electing the candidates for the patriarchal see. As for the budget of the Patriarchate, it was left in the hands of the Synod. The Jordanians were allowed to join the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, and the Mixed Council had no right to control the administration of the Patriarchate.[23]
The Orthodox Arab issue remains until this very day as one of the hot national issues. Under the political circumstances currently prevailing, no change is expected in the nature of the Orthodox patriarchal entity or even an amendment of the 1958 law. Since the old days, the entity of the Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarchate was linked with the ruling civilian authorities and any development or change in the structure of this Church is dependant on the political events and the decisions of the concerned governments.