Egypt says St. Catherine’s Monastery “belongs to the state”

By Adel Guindy – Al-Hewar –

On May 28, the Sharm el-Sheikh Court issued a ruling claiming that the ownership of the historic Saint Catherine’s Monastery and all its property belongs to the state — a serious development that reopens the file of a long-running legal dispute. While the court stated that “those (monks) who belong to the monastery have the right to ‘benefit from’ (use) the monastery and the religious and archaeological sites in the Saint Catherine area,” it also affirmed “the state’s ownership of these sites as part of public property.”

Greece immediately expressed concern about the ruling and said it is closely monitoring developments following the court’s decision. The spokesperson for the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the Greek Foreign Minister immediately contacted his Egyptian counterpart, stressing Greece’s rejection of any action that deviates from the mutual understanding between the two countries — an understanding embodied by the leaders of Athens and Cairo during the recent meeting of the Higher Council for Cooperation (between the two countries) held in Greece.

For his part, the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Patriarch Ieronymos, described the ruling as a “historic cancellation of any concept of law,” noting that the Egyptian government had decided to seize and confiscate the property of Saint Catherine’s Monastery, despite the commitments President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi made to Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis during his last visit to Athens.

Ieronymos said the ruling aims to “erase the very existence of the monastery and terminate its religious, spiritual, and cultural role.”

Archimandrite Porphyrios Frangakos, the representative of Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Athens, expressed deep concern and strong disapproval of the judicial ruling issued by the Sharm el-Sheikh Court, describing it as fundamentally contradicting a bilateral amicable agreement reached between the Egyptian and Greek sides in December 2024.

“What worries me deeply,” he added, “is that some are promoting the idea that the ruling is a good one. What is their goal? To calm Christian anger? To hand over the monastery unconditionally?” He noted that the monks currently reside (in Egypt) on annually renewed temporary residence permits, raising questions about the future of their presence in the monastery. He added: “Who guarantees these permits will be renewed? There are around twenty monks. How can anyone feel secure after this?”

The court’s decision comes after a long-running “legal dispute” between the Egyptian state’ various agencies and the monastery’s bishop and monks, which began when Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) took power in Egypt, and has continued ever since.

In late 2024, following high-level political consultations with Cairo, a Greek delegation visited Egypt, and a settlement was agreed upon between Archbishop Damianos (head of the monastery) and the Egyptian state. Under this agreement, Egypt would drop its legal proceedings and appeals, recognize the monastery’s property rights (status quo), while (the monastery’s leadership) commit to cooperating with the Egyptian Antiquities Authority to protect the site’s archaeological heritage.

This agreement was publicly welcomed in Athens by both the Greek Prime Minister and President El-Sisi. The Greek side awaited finalization of the process through a formal endorsement by Egypt’s Ministry of Justice. But instead, the court ruling was issued yesterday — and Cairo did not even bother to notify Athens or officially inform them.

Greek government sources say that Egypt’s reaction will determine its “credibility,” along with the credibility of President El-Sisi’s promises. Athens will draw important conclusions about how much Cairo’s assurances can be trusted in the future, particularly regarding other major issues in the Eastern Mediterranean.

A shock wave immediately spread out around the world, with governments, organizations and personalities declaring their apprehension, and demanding that Egypt respect its legal and international responsibilities. The shock was so great that Egypt’s Foreign Minister held (on Friday, the national holiday) an urgent meeting with the ambassadors of European countries in Egypt. However, the minister’s statements, as published, seem to evade the real issue of who owns the monastery. An urgent phone-call also took place between Egypt’s president and Greece’s PM.

Current Status and Key Takeaways

During the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) government in 2012-2013, following over ten years of low-level bureaucratic harassments, had initiated attempts to seize the monastery, which dates to the 6the century. After the Brotherhood’s departure, the current government (which claims to have “rid the country of the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood” in June 2013) continued its highly questionable efforts, revealing a pattern of troubling religious overreach that permeates all branches of the Egyptian state — executive, judicial, and sovereign — at every level (starting from the very top!)

Indeed, the new regime may simply be “Neo-Ikhwan!”

What is astonishing and baffling:

1- The state and its controversial court rulings claim that the ancient monastery is a “public property of the state.” Are the privately established mosques in Sinai and all over Egypt considered “public property”? Are Coptic churches and monasteries part of the state’s public properties? Are the homes and hotels built by the private sector in Sinai and across Egypt considered “public property of the state”? Does every private building hundreds of years old, whose ownership has been transferred across generations by inheritance or sale, automatically count as “public state property”? — in the legal meaning and implication of that term? If not, then why establish a special rule for the St. Catherine Monastery?

2- According to the law, if someone occupies a desert plot and cultivates and develops it for a certain period (15 years), they are legally entitled to own it, and thus have the right to sell it, pass it on, etc. The state cannot simply come years later and tell them — on a whim — that they were merely “beneficiaries” of the land and then seize it or force them to pay (a ransom!). So, what about this monastery, which has been continuously inhabited, developed, and cultivated for more than 1,450 years?!

3- This historic monastery and its monks have suffered greatly through the ages, yet it has never faced such an existential threat — not under the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ayyubids, the Fatimids, the Mamluks, the Ottomans, the Muhammad Ali dynasty, or even the post-1952 July Officers’ regime, all the way through to 2012. Isn’t it astonishing that the current (“Neo-Ikhwan”?) Egyptian regime is now engaging in such deeply concerning actions?

4- The Egyptian regime blatantly disregards UNESCO rules and resolutions — at the very time it is campaigning for an Egyptian candidate to be the next Director-General of UNESCO! Doesn’t this suggest some kind of inconsistent logic by those running this country?

5- The Egyptian state has launched the “Great Transfiguration” project in the area surrounding the monastery with the aim of attracting a million tourists. Regardless of the doubts and criticisms of this project, which radically alters the face of the historic area — how likely is it that tourists would want to visit a place subjected to such existential tampering?

6- According to available information, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, during his most recent visit to Greece just a few weeks ago (early May!), affirmed an agreement to halt and cancel all legal initiatives and appeals pursued by certain state bodies (primarily, the Sinai governorate, but also the Ministry of Antiquities and the army) and to restore the prior status quo. But now — according to a statement issued by the Presidency immediately after the court ruling — he appears to endorse the ruling of the court (which, typically, simply executes the instructions of the “sovereign” agencies). What credibility does he have left?

These are policies that defy understanding — but since when have fanatic ideologues ever been known for reason?

Background – (Status Summary on November 24, 2024)

A shocking legal battle was initiated by the Egyptian government against the head of Saint Catherine’s Monastery. The lawsuit seeks to evict the monastery’s leadership, monks, and staff, seize its buildings and lands as state property, and consider these assets as compensation for what the government deems “exploitation” of the site over many centuries since its founding (548–565 AD). Despite the implausible nature of these claims, the legal proceedings are ongoing, and a preliminary eviction ruling has already been issued — which the monastery is currently appealing.

The dispute, which has lasted more than nine years, was initiated by then–South Sinai Governor Major General Khaled Fouda, who initially demanded five million Egyptian pounds in compensation — an amount later doubled to ten million. The monastery, a unique Greek Orthodox institution that contains a mosque within its ancient structures, has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2002. It is located at the foot of Mount Horeb (Mount Sinai) and is the oldest continuously functioning Christian monastery in the world, bearing immense historical, architectural, and religious significance.

Court documents show that the government aims to evacuate the monastery from 29 plots of land. However, an initial expert committee was only able to inspect 10 plots due to the mountainous terrain that made access to the rest difficult. The scope of the case has since expanded to include the Ministers of Antiquities and Environment as defendants.

The monastery’s appeal, filed by its attorney Fathy Ragheb Hanna, highlights numerous procedural and substantive flaws in the initial judgment. The primary arguments include the invalidity of the ruling due to the death of one of the litigants during the proceedings, and the fact that most of the disputed lands are either registered archaeological sites or natural reserves — placing them under the jurisdiction of the Ministries of Antiquities or Environment, not the governor. This challenges the legal basis for the governor to bring the lawsuit in the first place. The appeal also notes that the lands are primarily used for churches and monastic purposes or have been in the monastery’s possession for a very long time — which undermines any claim of “exploitation.”

The report points out that the judicial focus on procedural aspects obscures the broader and more troubling implication: unjustified attempts by the Egyptian state to seize the monastery and potentially alter the identity of the region after centuries of its existence.

Although the South Sinai Governorate has officially denied any threat or plan to evict the monastery — calling such reports “rumors” — and has emphasized the strong ties and cooperation between the monastery and the governorate for the sake of the “public interest” and “historical and cultural connections,” it is acknowledged that “disputes” over the monastery’s land have in fact persisted for years. These disputes are, in part, closely linked to the expansive “Great Transfiguration” development project — a major tourism initiative.

The “Great Transfiguration” project, covering two million square meters between Mount Sinai and Saint Catherine, aims to attract one million tourists annually in its initial phase. Endorsed by President El-Sisi, it includes large-scale infrastructure developments: bazaars, eco-lodges, a mountain hotel, a visitor center, administrative complexes, a city heritage center, residential areas for Bedouins, new tourist and residential zones, road networks, flood control, and olive tree cultivation. It also plans to redevelop the historic Sadat Rest Stop area and the Zaytouna area with new religious facilities, commercial markets, schools, and residential and tourist units.

This issue raises serious concern over the efforts to interfere in the affairs of the monastery — as the harassment of such a vital World Heritage Site is deeply alarming. If the governorate’s denial is genuine, why does the state not halt the litigation process and unequivocally declare the matter closed, with no intention of altering a status quo that has endured for centuries?

The ongoing legal proceedings, despite official denials, raise serious questions about the state’s true intentions toward this historic and religious site of global importance.

__________________________

Adapted translation of:

https://www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=870938