Holy See, Israel make "significant progress": No change to position on East Jerusalem
The Bilateral Permanent Working Commission between the Holy See and the State of Israel met
today 12 June 2012 at the Plenary level, in the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican, to
carry on negotiations pursuant to the Fundamental Agreement Art. 10 paragraph 2. The
meeting was headed by Mgr Ettore BALESTRERO, Under-Secretary for Relations with States,
and by Mr Danny AYALON, M.K., Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. The negotiations
took place in a thoughtful and constructive atmosphere. The Commission took notice
that significant progress was made towards the conclusion of the Agreement. The
Commission further acknowledged the exemplary service of Their Excellencies Abp Antonio
FRANCO and Ambassador Mordechay LEWY on the occasion of their retirement. The Parties
have agreed on future steps and to hold the next Plenary meeting on 6th December
2012 at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Given below are extracts
from an interview given to Vatican Radio by Msgr. Ettore Balestrero, under secretary
for Relations with States, concerning the conclusion of the plenary meeting of the
Bilateral Permanent Working Commission between the Holy See and the State of Israel.
Question:
Over recent days there have been persistent rumours in some circles that the Agreement,
which has been in preparation for thirteen years, would finally be signed. Yet it
was not signed. What has happened?
Answer: Nothing in particular. It is true
that in some circles there was talk of signing the Agreement, but that was not in
fact scheduled. As I have said before, progress has been made, but questions still
remain to be resolved.
Q: There has been concern among Palestinians that, by
signing this Agreement, the Holy See would indirectly recognise Israeli sovereignty
over East Jerusalem and other territory occupied in the war of 1967.
A: The
Agreement in question concerns the life, activity and tax status of the Catholic Church
in Israel. It does not enter into territorial disputes. There will be no mention of
East Jerusalem or of anywhere in the West Bank.
Q: But there has been talk
of a draft agreement in which certain places in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are
mentioned.
A: Since the beginning of the negotiations we have worked on a plan
for a Comprehensive Agreement which also included the so-called 'Schedule One'; that
is, a list of individual properties belonging to the Holy See and to certain institutions
of the Catholic Church in the Holy Land which, over the years, have been subjected
to onerous provisions by Israel. And it is true that some of those properties are
in East Jerusalem or in areas occupied in 1967. The aim was to resolve concrete problems.
However, for some time now, it has been decided that the Agreement to be signed will
only deal with certain properties which are not in East Jerusalem or the West Bank.
Therefore it is incorrect to say that, by this Agreement, the Holy See would be violating
the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time
of war. The confusion and concern were due to the undue use of a working instrument,
which has long since been superseded and which, in any case, is still being elaborated.
Q:
Has the position of the Holy See on East Jerusalem changed?
A: The Holy See's
position has not changed. It was affirmed in the 'Basic Agreement' between the Holy
See and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), it has been reiterated on various
occasions, and will be mentioned again in the 'Global Agreement' with the PLO, currently
being prepared.
Q: A final question. It has been written that this Agreement
which the Holy See is preparing with Israel will damage agreements that France, Italy
and other countries have with Israel.
A: That is untrue, The Agreement concerns
the Holy See and the State of Israel, and has no effect on agreements Israel has made
with other States. The validity of those agreements depends first and foremost on
the will of the parities involved and not on the existence of an agreement those parties
have with a third party, in this case the Holy See. This is, moreover, a commonly
accepted principle of international law.