In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

7 Israel and the Question of the Russian Ecclesiastical Assets Real Estates in the Holy Land: Zionism vs. Christianity One of the most complex issues between Israel and the Christian world in the early years of statehood was that of church property.The complexity stemmed from the conflict between Israel’s desire to command and nationalize the bulk of the territory within its borders and the claims of the various church organizations to legal and historic rights over plots of land and a considerable number of buildings in the new state.The issue should be examined within the context of Israel’s land policy as consolidated in that period.1 The desire to acquire and nationalize territory had been an inseparable component of Zionist ideology and practice long before 1948. At the strategic level, it was postulated that land was the basis for national renaissance and that settlement of the land would determine territorial sovereignty and reinforce Israel’s standing in the national conflict with the Arabs. This ideology was also based on social and economic motives and, after Israel was established, on critical planning considerations . And finally, in the immediate post-independence years, the existence of a large reserve of public land—state lands, absentee property, and enemy property—facilitated the implementation of a national strategy along these lines. Among the measures employed, which were aimed, inter alia, at dispossessing Arabs, were the confiscation of absentee property, as defined by Israel, the requisition of land whose owners were living in Israel, and discrimination against Arabs in leasing of land.2 In recent years this subject has engaged the interest of historians, who have extended their research on land purchase in the Mandate period to the first decade of statehood. Recent studies include a detailed description of the considerable effort invested in land purchase and an authoritative analysis of the considerable success of this strategy—from the perspective of its initiators— despite the difficulties they encountered.These included the complications entailed in dealing with church assets, some of which had been seized during the 1948 war. Israel had proclaimed loud and clear, particularly during its struggle Bialer, Cross on the Star 6/9/05 8:43 AM Page 144 to win UN membership in 1949, that it had no intention of confiscating church property and that it would endeavor to restore it to its owners, military circumstances permitting.3 There was now a basic clash between Israel’s overall strategy aimed at exercising control over all the land within its borders and the political constraints it faced. Moreover, this general policy was fueled by a particular religious, national, and political interest, which has been analyzed above, namely,to diminish the Christian presence in Israel.In internal correspondence, the general custodian wrote frankly: “We should take a favorable view of any activity aimed at reducing the amount of property held by the churches.”4 The ideal solution, as far as Jerusalem was concerned, was to engineer settlement with church organizations, which would minimize political damage and would imply de jure recognition by the Christian world of the new situation in Israel. This envisaged solution was totally at odds with the manifest interest of the Christian world to protect its rights and assets in the Holy Land.Consequently, Israel’s path to achievement was by no means smooth. The problems Israel faced were colored by the organizational structure and political ties of the various church organizations and their fate during the 1948 war.The legal ownership of property of the Scottish and Abyssinian churches, for example, was not challenged. However, during the hostilities, several of their sites were requisitioned by the army and were not restored to their owners or, alternatively, were seized by individual and institutional squatters because of the shortage of accommodation at the time. The buildings owned by the Roman Catholic Church were under the custody of the Vatican and various Catholic countries such as France, Italy, Spain, Austria, and Poland, who brought pressure to bear on Israel to release their assets. As a consequence, a large number of buildings were returned to their owners. In some cases, the churches agreed to lease some of their property to the Israeli authorities, and in others the negotiations dragged on for several years and were influenced by economic,military,and political considerations.This was also true of the assets of the Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches, where, in most cases, negotiations culminated in settlements while several disputes remained unresolved for many...

Share