The VaTican & Jerusalem - PASSIA Online Store

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Vatican & JerusalemThe Search for a Stronger Influence in the Negotiations on the Future of Jerusalemthe Holy See Press Office issued a long justificatory statement on 30 December 1993, which explainedRome’s position:Questions relative to the city of Jerusalem and other Holy Places, which for so long have been theobject of the Holy See’s concern, are not directly or explicitly mentioned in the Agreement becauseof their international and multilateral references, which does not permit solving them with anAgreement which is, by definition, bilateral between the two signing Parties. That does not mean thatthe position of the Holy See with regards to such questions has changed or that their importance hasbeen, in any way, forgotten. The Holy See has noted that, in what concerns the territorial questionsand the sovereignty linked to this, something has changed in the position of the Parties most directlyinterested. After the Madrid Conference, after the negotiations in Washington (1992-1993) and afterthe historical agreement between Israel and the PLO (13 September 1993), the parties, whose claimsare well known, now are sitting opposite one another for direct negotiations. The Holy See, coherentwith the principles already recalled concerning its participation in the problems of international coexistence,does not intend to take the place of any of the Parties in treating the problems of territorialsovereignty. The Holy See, on the other hand, feels the duty and the right to continue to claim, asit has always done, several guarantees in the international sphere. It asks that whoever exercisessovereignty, alone or with others, must adhere to an internationally guaranteed special statute forthat which concerns the safekeeping of the highest religious and cultural values found in that area. 123These justifications failed to restore the trust of the Palestinians who, in addition to objecting to the factthat the Holy See would ever consider the possibility that a power could “alone” exercise its sovereigntyover the whole city, noted that the agreement with the Israelis had even failed to mention the Vatican’scall for an internationally guaranteed status. During the following years, the Holy See tried to show that itsposition had not changed, and that it continued to defend “a solution which, based on principles of justiceand on respect for legitimate aspirations of the parties, [would] secure peaceful coexistence of the twopeoples.” 124 In 1996, the Vatican’s Secretariat of State summarized clearly the substance of this position:community. The latter could be summarized as follows: The part of the city militarily occupied in1967 and subsequently annexed and declared the capital of the state of Israel is occupied territory,and all Israeli measures which exceed the power of a belligerent occupant under international laware therefore null and void. 125Through the voice of its Foreign Minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Holy See endeavored onseveral occasions to refute accusations from both sides that it either overlooked—or on the contrary gottoo much involved—in the territorial and political dispute. Thus in an address to the World Conferenceof Bishops held in Jerusalem on 26 October 1998, where he qualified the situation on the ground as “acase of manifest international injustice,” Tauran explained a fundamental aspect of the position of theVatican at the time:It is therefore wrong to claim that the Holy See is only interested in the religious aspect or aspects ofthe City and overlooks the political and territorial aspect. The Holy See is indeed interested in thisaspect and has the right and duty to be, especially insofar as the matter remains unresolved and is thecause of conflict, injustice, human rights violations, restrictions of religious freedom and conscience,fear and personal insecurity. Obviously, the Holy See’s immediate and practical concern is withreligious questions, while in other matters—political, economic, etc.—it interests itself inasmuch asthey have a moral dimension. If the Holy See has no competence to enter into territorial disputesbetween Nations, to take sides, to seek to impose detailed solutions, on the contrary it has the rightand duty of reminding the Parties of the obligation to resolve controversies peacefully, in accordancewith the principles of justice and equity within the international legal framework. 126The Holy See, as the previously mentioned Article 11 of the fundamental agreement indicates, isnot concerned with the question of how many square meters or kilometers constitute the disputedterritory, but it does have the right—a right which it exercises—to express a moral judgment on thesituation. It is obvious that every territorial dispute involves ethical considerations such as the right ofnational communities to self-determination, the right of communities to preserve their own identity,the right of all people to equality before the law and in the distribution of resources, the right not tobe discriminated against by reason of ethnic origin or religious affiliation, etc. The Holy See’s attitudewith regard to the territorial situation of Jerusalem is necessarily the same as that of the international123 Statement by the Holy See Press Office Director Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Vatican City, 30 December 1993 [Excerpts], PASSIADocuments on Jerusalem, op. cit.124 “Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the UN, Non-Paper on Jerusalem, 20 July 1998,” PASSIA Documents on Jerusalem, op. cit.125 “Considerations of the Secretariat of State of the Vatican on Jerusalem, May 1996,” PASSIA Documents on Jerusalem, op. cit.126 “Vatican Foreign Minister Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Address to the World Conference of Bishops, Jerusalem,26 October 1998,” op. cit.40 41
The Vatican & JerusalemThe Search for a Stronger Influence in the Negotiations on the Future of JerusalemThe ‘Basic Agreement between the Holy See and the Palestine Liberation Organization’To further demonstrate its impartiality vis-à-vis the two contending parties and continue to strengthenits influence in negotiations over the future of Jerusalem via bilateral channels, the Vatican formalizedofficial ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization on 26 October 1994. However, it was clear thatthis move towards the Palestinian national representatives avoided upsetting the Israelis by excluding anygesture likely to be deemed by them as recognition of a Palestinian state. Indeed, the accord limited itselfto “giving the already long-existing and fruitful working contacts a permanent and official character” 127and fell short of setting up full diplomatic relations with the PLO. In practical terms, this meant thatpapal representatives maintained contacts with Palestinian officials through the Vatican’s Embassy inTunis rather than with PLO representatives in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while maintaining apresence in Palestine and Jerusalem through the Apostolic Delegation. Still, the relations between theVatican and the PLO deepened during that period—asexemplified by the numerous private audiences accordedby John Paul II to the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat—until they led a few years later to a key developmenton the diplomatic front. On 15 February 2000, at theend of Arafat’s ninth meeting with the Pope, the firstcomprehensive bilateral agreement between the HolySee and the PLO, “working for the benefit and onbehalf of the Palestinian Authority,” was signed. Theso-called ‘Basic Agreement between the Holy See andthe Palestine Liberation Organization’ 128 represented arather significant recognition of the Palestinian claimsfor statehood on behalf of the Vatican, as it called fora “peaceful solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,Meeting between John Paul II and YasserArafat, 2000. © Reuters PC / FMSwhich would realize the inalienable national legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinian People.”In exchange, the Holy See sought to secure through the accord the rights of the Roman Catholic Churchin the territory meant to become the future state of Palestine. In addition to reasserting in its preamble“the special significance of the Holy Land [as] a privileged space for inter-religious dialogue between thefollowers of the three monotheistic religions,” the agreement tackled subjects of particular interest for the127 Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Vatican’s spokesman. Qtd. in “Vatican Establishes ‘Stable and Official Relations’ With P.L.O.,” TheNew-York Times, 26 October 1994. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/world/vatican-establishes-stable-and-official-relations-with-plo.html.128 “Basic Agreement between the Holy See and the Palestine Liberation Organization,” 15 February 2000. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2000/documents/rc_seg-st_20000215_santa-sede-olp_en.html.Vatican, such as freedom of religion and conscience, 129 equality of rights for Christian citizens, the abilityof the Church to carry out its activities freely, and economic and fiscal matters. Moreover, unlike theFundamental Agreement with Israel, the ‘Basic Agreement’ tackled specifically the question of the HolyCity, reiterating that “an equitable solution for the issue of Jerusalem, based on international resolutions,was fundamental for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Even more importantly for the HolySee, and again in contrast with the Fundamental Agreement, the accord endorsed the general principleof ‘an internationally guaranteed special statute’ 130 for the city, and laid out in detail the essential valuesand rights to be safeguarded in that way: freedom of religion and conscience for all; equality before thelaw of the three monotheistic religions and their institutions and followers; respect for the identity andsacred character of the city and its universally significant religious and cultural heritage; integrity of theholy places; freedom to access and worship in them; and the regime of status quo in those holy placeswhere it applied. Palestinian officials, for their part, interpreted the Basic Agreement as tantamount tothe Vatican’s recognition of the Palestinian political aspirations regarding Jerusalem. 131 Although the HolySee did not officially validate this interpretation, the agreement represented a rather strong statementof support for the Palestinians’ appeals regarding Jerusalem. Indeed, signed shortly after PLO officialshad publicly expressed their concerns over the building of new Israeli settlement units in and aroundEast Jerusalem, the pontifical signatory of the document joined its Palestinian counterpart to stronglycondemn as “morally and legally unacceptable” any “unilateral decisions and actions altering the specificcharacter and status of Jerusalem.”Not surprisingly, this fairly resolute stance on Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, together withthe political recognition of the Palestinian Authority and the national rights of the Palestinian people,stirred strong opposition in Israel. 132 An official Israeli Foreign Minister statement was immediatelyissued, rejecting the notion that Jerusalem could even be the subject of an agreement between theVatican and the PLO, and regarding the accord as “a regretful intervention in the talks between Israeland the Palestinians.” The communiqué concluded that “Jerusalem, was, is, and shall remain the capital129 The Basic Agreement was actually the first accord signed by the Holy See with the government of a nation of Muslim majority,which establishes among the common principles the freedom of religion as stated by the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, and encourages interreligious dialogue in order to increase mutual understanding between peoples (Art. 1-3). Cf. StefaniPiero, “Guardando a Gerusalemme e all’islam. Accordo di base sulla Chiesa cristiana in Palestina,” in Il Regno, n° 6, 2000.http://www.conflittidimenticati.it/cd/a/17498.html.130 “The Palestinian interpretation of this endorsement, which could appear as inconsistent with the PLO position, was howeverthat such a special statute shall be established under Palestinian sovereignty over the eastern part of the city.” Cf. “LegalOpinion on Israel-Holy See Bilateral Agreements and Their Conformity with International Law with Regards to the Statusof Jerusalem,” op. cit.131 As illustrated by comments made by the Legislative Council Speaker, Ahmed Qurei. Cf Stahl Julie, “Arafat, Pope Sign JerusalemAgreement,” CNSNews.com, 7 July 2008. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/arafat-pope-sign-jerusalem-agreement.132 Christiansen, Drew. “The Vatican-PLO Agreement: A Catholic Perspective,” in The Jerusalem Fund, Information Brief, n°28, 16March 2000. http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/2155/pid/2254.42 43
Page 5 and 6: The Vatican & JerusalemVatican’s
Page 7 and 8: The Vatican & JerusalemVatican’s
Page 12 and 13: The Vatican & JerusalemThe followin
Page 14 and 15: The Vatican & Jerusalem“Nostra Ae
Page 16: The Vatican & Jerusalemrepeated in
Page 20 and 21: The Vatican & JerusalemThe Search f
Page 24 and 25: The Vatican & Jerusalemof Israel, a
Page 26 and 27: The Vatican & JerusalemThe Disappoi
Page 28 and 29: The Vatican & JerusalemThe Disappoi
Page 30 and 31: The Vatican & JerusalemThe Holy See
Page 38 and 39: The Vatican & Jerusalemannexesentru
Page 42 and 43: The Vatican & JerusalemannexesRelig
Page 46 and 47: The Vatican & JerusalemannexesAs co
Page 48 and 49: The Vatican & JerusalemannexesTo sa
Page 50 and 51: The Vatican & JerusalemannexesEmigr
Page 52 and 53: The Vatican & JerusalemannexesBriti
Page 54 and 55: The Vatican & Jerusalem• 2000, Ju
Page 56: The Vatican & Jerusalem• Prior, M

The VaTican & Jerusalem - PASSIA Online Store

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?