Reform in the Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem

Yev Yeghev Luys (“And there was light”)

Reform in the Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem

By Bedross Der Matossian

The Armenian Reporter

ISSUE: Jun 30, 2007

In 2005, I was invited to the Armenian Bar Association of America’s 16th annual national meeting in San Diego, to take part in a panel on the future of Jerusalem’s Armenian Quarter. The other panelist was Karnig Kerkonian J.D., an expert on international law from Chicago. I dealt with the current challenges facing the community from an historical perspective; Karnig addressed the legal dimension of the Quarter’s future. The panel was followed by a question period during which the ABA members unanimously suggested the creation of a legal body that would deal with the Quarter’s legal problems. After the panel I was approached by some lawyers and judges, most of whom felt deep concern over the condition of the Armenian Quarter, though a significant number expressed pessimism that Armenians have no voice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let alone in the issues pertaining to the future of Jerusalem. Two years have passed since that gathering, and the challenges for Jerusalem’s Armenian community have only increased, due to socio-economic and political factors in the region. I still hold firm the belief that the main remedy to the decline of the Armenians in Jerusalem would be the establishment of an advisory council that would address the relevant problems. This article will argue along these lines by providing an historical analysis on the intra-communal relationships and challenges facing the Armenian community. To conclude I will suggest some necessary steps to dealing with the decline in one of the Armenian diaspora’s most important communities.

* * *

One can hardly understand the current condition of the Jerusalem Armenians without understanding the historical transformations that Armenians in general experienced under the 19th-century Ottoman Empire, and later under the British Mandate, Jordanian rule, and the current administration by Israel. Under the Ottoman Empire, political changes coupled with the Tanzimat reforms led to the emergence of an Armenian constitutional movement, which aimed at conducting Armenian community affairs on the basis of written regulations – i.e., a constitution. A long struggle ensued between “constitutionalists” and “conservatives,” but an Armenian National Constitution was ratified in 1863, and the Armenian National Assembly that formed had equal rights with Istanbul’s Armenian Patriarch. In addition to ratifying the election of the Patriarch in Istanbul, the ANS also ratified the election of the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem. Thus, in the second half of the 19th century, the Armenian National Assembly sitting in Constantinople assumed the right to elect the Patriarch of Jerusalem and to supervise and control the Patriarchate’s finances, the negotiation of loans, and the sale and purchase of properties. Up until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian National Assembly had the right to interfere in the affairs of the Armenian community of Jerusalem. The situation changed after the empire’s collapse, however, as Jerusalem’s St. James Brotherhood emerged as an autonomous entity. The following points should be taken into consideration to understand the historical background of the community’s present condition.

(a) Implementation of the constitution: The Armenian National Constitution promulgated in 1863 did not have as direct an impact on the Armenian community of Jerusalem as it did on the Armenians living in the other cities of the Ottoman Empire. However, up to the collapse of the empire, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem did remain subordinate to Istanbul’s Patriarchate and Armenian National Assembly. During this period, no internal reform of Jerusalem’s Armenian community took place – most likely because a large independent community did not exist there at the time. Most of the local population was affiliated with the Armenian Patriarchate in some way, and the compounds inside the Armenian cathedral were rarely inhabited by the local population; they served only as accommodations for the pilgrims, whose status was that of temporary visitors.

(b) Collapse of the empire: The collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Genocide during the First World War led to a mass migration of Armenians from Cilicia to Jerusalem – leading ultimately to a major change in the on-the-ground reality in Jerusalem, with thousands pouring into the Armenian Quarter seeking shelter. Previously, the Armenian Patriarchate had dealt only with temporary pilgrims; now it had to deal with “pilgrims” permanently residing in the Armenian Quarter. The collapse of the empire also led to the detachment of the Jerusalem Patriarchate from the authority of the Istanbul Patriarchate and the Armenian National Assembly. The election of Patriarch Yeghishe Turian (1921-1929) was done according to the Armenian National Constitution, but the election was ratified by the British Queen. During Patriarch Torkom Koushagian’s reign (1929-1939), the constitution of the St. James Brotherhood was modified to vest authority for the election of the Patriarch exclusively in the brotherhood’s General Assembly – negating any “popular” element to the decision, and so denying any kind of “national” character to the election.

(c) Relations between the Patriarchate and State: During the Mandatory Period, the Patriarchate kept its relationship with the British authorities on good terms. The British largely maintained the Ottoman millet system, which meant that local administrative matters concerning the Armenian refugees and the local population were still referred to the Patriarchate. However, following the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and the subsequent withdrawal of the British, the situation changed. Jerusalem became a hotly contested locale between the Jordanians and the Israelis -- a competition frequently reflected within the Armenian community on the issue of the patriarchal elections. The Cold War had its own impact on the inter-communal relationships, as Jerusalem became a contested place between the holy sees of Etchmiadzin and Cilicia. In the 1970s and 80s, the Patriarchate pursued a subtle and sophisticated policy with the Israeli government. But in 1987 the first Intifada broke out, leaving an immense impact on the Armenian shopkeepers in Jerusalem, and leading to the departure of dozens of Armenian families. The Patriarchate’s policies towards the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority cooled into a generally apolitical sentiment following the 1990 death of Patriarch Derderian and the arrival that same year of Patriarch Torkom Manoogian. Nevertheless, in spite of this evident desire to stay out of the political fray, as the leader of one of the three Christian patriarchates of Jerusalem, Patriarch Manoogian is regularly led, along with the Greek and Latin patriarchs, to take public stances on the prevailing issues, and has co-signed a number of “common declarations” with the other Christian communities on the status of Jerusalem and on the political situation in general. It should not be forgotten that the position of Patriarch Manoogian is quite different from that of his predecessor. Patriarch Derderian was a political man first and foremost, and during his reign the situation was significantly less hostile, both with the Jordanians (until 1967) and within the municipality controlled by Israel’s Labor party. Beginning in 1980, however, the situation of East Jerusalem moved from bad to worse, as the rightist Likud party began running the municipality. The larger truth today is that it is not easy for any church to intercede effectively with the government regarding the problems faced by its lay population, because the churches themselves have their own problems with the current Israeli policies.

(d) Relations between the Patriarchate and laity: As mentioned above, in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide, Jerusalem’s Armenian Quarter filled with “permanent pilgrims,” and the Patriarchate, long used to housing and dealing with “temporary” pilgrims only, now had a larger problem on its hands. Eventually the Armenian lay population organized its own clubs and organizations, and a period of revival began during the period under the British Mandate. However, the lay community never developed a unified body through which to represent grievances and issues pertaining to the community to the religious authorities. Exacerbating this deficiency were the ideological currents extant elsewhere in the Armenian diaspora – and as elsewhere magnified by the Cold War -- which also had an impact on Jerusalem’s Armenian community. During the internal rivalries over the election of the patriarch, for example, these ideological loyalties were manipulated by the clergy and by the political parties themselves to support one or the other rival faction. As a consequence, a deep schism developed in the community, precluding the hope for a unified lay body. In the absence of a unified approach, the ideological parties through their clubs acted as mediators between the “community” -- most of the time representing the interests and the grievances of their own club members -- and the Patriarchate. However, these channels proved to be unproductive on issues involving with the genuine collective interest of the community. And when the political and the socio-economic situation began to deteriorate, especially within the last three decades, these channels proved to be utterly incompetent in representing the grievances of their members. It is reasonable to say that the very lack of such a unified lay body to provide a unified channel for the collective interest of the Armenians was itself an important factor in the process of decline.

(e) The Patriarchate vs. a unified body: The inability of the Armenian community to present grievances through a unified body is a direct result of the ideological rivalries in Jerusalem. It is certainly true that the Armenian Patriarchate in the second half of the 20th century favored, and even unofficially endorsed, one group over the other; and that the parties themselves attempted to advance their political agendas by backing one clerical faction over the other, especially during the Cold War period. In the main, however, it is clear that the Armenian Patriarchate as an institution was reluctant to see the formation of any kind of a unified lay body that would advance the collective interests of the Armenians of Jerusalem.

* Challenges facing Jerusalem’s Armenian community

Today the shrinking Armenian community of Jerusalem faces serious challenges threatening its continued existence. I will discuss some of these challenges below, and provide suggestions as to how to deal with them.

Citizenship status: Most of the Armenians living in Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens. Most of them are Jordanian citizens de jure, and so fall under the legal category of “Eastern Jerusalemites.” This means that in their dealings with the governmental bureaucracy they have to deal directly with the Eastern Jerusalem institutions. The most important institution in this regard is the Israeli Ministry of the Interior branch of East Jerusalem. Issues relating to obtaining traveling documents, marriage, divorce, family reunion, and death (among other things) need to be addressed through this institution. For the Armenians of Jerusalem and most of the Palestinians of East Jerusalem, this has been one of the most stressful obstacles with which they have had to contend. In past years, simply entering the Ministry of the Interior facility was a substantial challenge – a precursor to the difficulty of dealing with the presiding regulations. In response, Palestinian media and some Israeli human rights groups have raised the issue of bureaucratic abuse in East Jerusalem. The ministry recently obtained a new building, and so the situation has improved slightly. However, serious bureaucratic obstacles still stand with regard to marriage and family regulations. For example, Jerusalem Armenians who marry Armenians from elsewhere in the diaspora continue to face significant obstacles in bringing their spouses to Jerusalem, due to the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ intolerable regulations on family reunion. This is precisely the type of grievance that a unified Advisory Council would be able to address, through a sub-committee of legal experts. As it stands now, those who face serious problems with the ministry have no sympathetic body at all to take up their causes.

Business opportunity: Business opportunities for Armenians in Jerusalem are limited. A poor economic situation discourages the venture of opening a private business in East Jerusalem. But it is also impossible to open a business in West Jerusalem because of the economic and the political status of the Armenians. This lack of business opportunity in East and West Jerusalem was an important factor in the immigration of the local Armenians to the U.S. and Canada. Meanwhile, though the Armenian Patriarchate owns a couple of important buildings in West Jerusalem, with over 150 shops rented to Israelis, the local Armenian community does not benefit at all from these properties.

Housing: Housing remains one of the biggest problems facing the Armenians of Jerusalem -- arguably one of the prime factors for the community’s decline. Jerusalem’s Old City is overly populated, and it is almost impossible to find an empty space. In the last two decades the price of real state began to rise steeply: for example, a house of two rooms would cost $150,000 (and we are not talking about modern apartments here; usually these houses are characterized as “caves,” where humidity is a frequent visitor). The average monthly income of an Armenian in Jerusalem ranges from $800 to $1,200; the economic condition of Armenians was better in the past when most of them benefited from tourism with their goldsmith and souvenir shops, but now 80 percent of the Armenian shopkeepers have left Jerusalem as a result of the political situation. It is extremely difficult for an Armenian living in East Jerusalem to obtain a house in West Jerusalem, first because he is most likely not an Israeli citizen, and second because of the high prices. Even if he considered buying an apartment, he would need to take out a mortgage from a bank – which is only possible for citizens. If the local Armenians were living in an equitable society where they had equal access to resources, then they would not be dependent on the Patriarchate, and would have less to complain about regarding its policies. But because of the hurdles situated in the path of Israel’s non-citizens, the Armenian Patriarchate has become the only venue which can act on behalf of Jerusalem’s Armenians. With regard to the housing issue, the Patriarchate as an institution -- despite its vast properties and empty compounds -- has failed to tackle this major concern. On the contrary, Armenians who apply for housing to the Patriarchate itself still face huge obstacles. Beyond this, the Patriarchate’s perennially empty compounds and territories are always vulnerable to “loss,” state confiscation, or illicit sale. It is worth noting that the last housing project in the Armenian Quarter was a three-story building built by the Gulbenkian Foundation – some 50 years ago.

Education: The Armenian St. Tarkmantchats Secondary School in Jerusalem follows neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian educational systems. It follows the educational system put in place under the British Mandate. So in order to enter institutions of higher learning, Armenian students need to pass the GSCE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) exam. As a result it has become more difficult for Armenians to enter Palestinian or Israeli universities, and most students now tend to go to Armenia to study at Yerevan State University. A reform in the educational system at St. Tarkmantchats needs to take place in order to elevate the school’s educational and teaching standards, and to bring it into conformity with the prevailing societal norms.

Armenian lands and the “final solution” for Jerusalem: In 2005, Jerusalem’s Greek Patriarchate faced a huge property scandal. In March of that year, Maariv, one of the leading Israeli papers, revealed in a lengthy article a secret deal that had been struck between the Greek Patriarchate and two Jewish investors from Cyprus. According to this deal, the Patriarchate had sold two important buildings with 72 shops in the most strategic area of East Jerusalem, near the Jaffa Gate. It was reported that the deal was signed by the real state director of the Greek Patriarchate, a priest named Niko, who thereupon vanished and escaped to South America. The Armenian Patriarchate has had its own homegrown “Niko’s,” and has been likewise involved in land scandals. One reason for the abuse of position and the mismanagement of real estate holdings is the lack of transparency in the management of the Patriarchate’s real state. In order to have transparency, all the Patriarchate’s properties would have to be recorded and published in a publicly-accessible way. In the meantime, any mishandling of the Patriarchate’s property inevitably redounds to the detriment of the vulnerable Armenian community – making the inspection the Armenian real state holdings one of the primary tasks for the hypothetical unified advisory council. Creating such an entity needs to be done soon, before the pending “final solution” of the Jerusalem issue. In the past, the Armenian Quarter has been the center of attention during peace talks, in particular during the Camp David accords. Now once again, the Armenians of Jerusalem are on the verge of seeing their fate decided by great international powers. It should be our task to challenge any decision regarding the Armenian community of Jerusalem that contradicts the collective interest of the Jerusalem Armenians. Any decision should be made through a referendum -- and for this purpose we would need a competent legal body to play an important role in the proposed advisory council.

* An “Armenian Advisory Council” for Jerusalem?

Those involved in deciding the fate of the Armenians of Jerusalem need to understand that the Armenian community members themselves need to have a voice in the process. Clinging to partisan ideology has failed to serve the collective interest of the Armenian community in the past, and will fail again. In light of that, reform in the Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem is necessary at this critical moment of history. I am not suggesting that the constitution of the St. James Brotherhood needs to be modified, nor that the Patriarchate needs to be made subordinate to a reborn Armenian National Assembly. Such objectives would be impossible to realize. Instead, I am suggesting the establishment of an Armenian Advisory Council in Jerusalem that would advise the Patriarchate on issues pertaining to the political, economic, and social dimensions of the Armenians of Israel/Palestine in general, and of Jerusalem in particular. This Advisory Council would consist of members from the Armenian community of Jerusalem, the diaspora, and the Armenian government. (Partisan representation would be undesirable so as to avoid a repetition of the Cold War experience.) A committee of legal experts within the Advisory Council would tackle issues pertaining to law and legality in the Armenian Quarter. In 2005, the Armenian Bar Association of America expressed its readiness to take part in such a project. Taking into consideration the deplorable condition of the Armenians of Jerusalem, and the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict, creating such an Advisory Council represents the most promising path to a new phase for the remnants of the community, characterized by a more equal distribution of resources, an evaluation of the real living conditions of the community, and a commitment to identifying appropriate solutions. After Armenia itself, Jerusalem’s Armenian Quarter is one of the most important Armenian centers in the world, with a rich history of 1,500 years, and a claim to be one of the pre-eminent spiritual and cultural centers in the diaspora. The perpetuation of this treasure is presently in question; its preservation will depend on the survival of both the Armenian Patriarchate and the Armenian community of Jerusalem.