By Coptic Solidarity –
A storm of outrage has erupted in Greece’s political and intellectual circles in response to Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ statements in Parliament concerning St Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai. Prominent figures such as MEP Nikos Farantouris and former Deputy Foreign Minister Markos Bolaris accuse the government of concealment, diplomatic surrender to Egypt and potentially collusion, at the expense of one of the world’s oldest Christian monasteries.
The controversy centers on a “preliminary joint understanding” between Greece and Egypt, announced by the Prime Minister, concerning the monastery’s legal status and property rights amid a legal battle in Egypt that threatens to transfer ownership of monastic lands to the Egyptian state.
The Prime Minister’s Statement — Spark That Ignited the Fire
During a parliamentary session, Mitsotakis stated that Greece and Egypt had reached a “preliminary common understanding” regarding the monastery, adding that the arrangement guarantees its religious character, prohibits any alteration of worship sites, and ensures the continuation of the monastic community. He emphasized that the monastery’s ownership issue was “a matter going back centuries” and suggested it was being exploited by those who “ignore the facts.” He did not specify the content of the agreement, its legal form, nor whether ownership was explicitly safeguarded.
This vague wording is precisely what ignited accusations from opposition voices — who argue that the Prime Minister spoke only about preserving the ‘character’ of the monastery, while carefully avoiding the term ‘ownership.’
MEP Farantouris: “Is the Monastery Being Gifted to Egypt?”
In a sharply worded intervention, MEP Nikos Farantouris of the SYRIZA party accuses the Prime Minister of withholding information and urges the government to clarify the exact contents of the alleged agreement with Egypt. Farantouris notes that Egyptian courts recently issued a decision that appears to strip the monastery of its ownership rights dating back 1,600 years. He warns that if ownership is not secured, the monastery risks becoming “a hollow tourist shell, without monastic life.”
Farantouris further recalls that the Prime Minister claimed the issue dates back centuries, but insists this is false; he argues that the dispute only arose now, under the current Egyptian administration and Greek government. He references international media reports, including Corriere della Sera, alleging that Greece silently agreed to Egypt’s ownership claims in exchange for political or economic concessions, and asks pointedly whether this amounts to “the Monastery being given away.”
Moreover, Farantouris claims that the government is pressuring the new Archbishop of Sinai to endorse the agreement during his enthronement ceremony — potentially in the presence of Greek and Egyptian officials — even as legal procedures continue against the monastery in Egypt.
Bolaris: “A Historic Betrayal”
Former Deputy Foreign Minister Markos Bolaris goes even further, delivering an unprecedentedly harsh attack on the Prime Minister. In a public essay, he accuses Mitsotakis of “lying brazenly before Parliament,” calling his claims “a disgrace” and “a betrayal of Hellenism and Orthodoxy.”
According to Bolaris:
- The ownership of the Monastery is not an unresolved or ancient dispute. For 1,500 years, its property has been recognized — by Byzantine emperors, the Prophet Muhammad’s Achtiname, Ottoman sultans, Napoleon, the British, and modern Egyptian rulers.
- Only now, under this Greek government, is ownership being challenged by Egypt in its courts.
- The Prime Minister’s statement that this dispute “goes back centuries” is, he says, “utterly false.”
- Mitsotakis’ refusal to mention ownership — while speaking only of the monastery’s “religious character” — is seen as deliberate misdirection.
Bolaris also accuses the Prime Minister of:
- Including the Monastery in secret negotiations with Egypt without authority from Parliament, the Church, or the Sinai Monastic Community.
- Creating phrasing that could be used against the Monastery in Egyptian “sham courts” to justify confiscation.
- Engaging in “diplomatic sell-out” — trading monastic property rights for broader geopolitical deals with Egypt.
His language is extremely severe — calling Mitsotakis “unworthy of Greece’s historical and spiritual heritage,”speaking of “betrayal of Romiosyni (Hellenic-Orthodox identity),” and warning of an attempt to coerce the monks into signing away sacred land.
Core of the Accusations
Across both Farantouris’ and Bolaris’ interventions, a clear and forceful political narrative emerges. They accuse the Prime Minister of having misled both Parliament and the Greek people about the nature and timing of the dispute over St Catherine’s Monastery. According to them, he falsely presented the controversy as a centuries-old issue, whereas in reality this is a new situation caused by a recent Egyptian court ruling under the current Greek government’s watch.
They also argue that the government is withholding crucial information and concealing the existence or content of a “preliminary understanding” reached with Egypt. In their view, this is not a harmless or symbolic agreement but one that potentially compromises the legal ownership of the Monastery and its vast properties. They insist that what is at stake is not merely the preservation of the monastery’s “religious character,” as the Prime Minister repeatedly says, but its actual ownership — land, buildings, archives, relics, and property titles held for over 1,500 years.
Farantouris goes further to suggest that Greece may have silently conceded to Egypt’s claims in return for political or economic advantages — effectively implying a trade-off, or an exchange of silence and cooperation for diplomatic gain. Both he and Bolaris warn that the vague language used by the Prime Minister in Parliament could be weaponised in Egyptian legal proceedings and used to undermine the monastery’s case before Egyptian courts.
Bolaris adds that this behaviour undermines not only Greece’s moral responsibility but also international obligations — including UNESCO conventions that protect the monastery as a world cultural and religious heritage site. He stresses that for the first time in history, the Monastery’s ownership is being challenged, and this is happening under a Greek government that claims to defend Hellenism and Orthodoxy.
In addition, Farantouris raises the alarm that the new Archbishop of Sinai and the monastic community may be subjected to pressure so they will accept or legitimise this alleged agreement with Egypt. Both politicians argue that this situation constitutes, not simply a diplomatic misjudgment, but a national, ecclesiastical, and cultural betrayal.
Conclusion
What began as a technical diplomatic update has exploded into a fierce internal dispute in Greece. While the government speaks of a diplomatic understanding preserving the monastery’s “character,” prominent political voices accuse the Prime Minister of obscuring the real issue — ownership — and potentially enabling Egypt’s legal and political efforts to absorb the monastery’s heritage and lands.
The matter is no longer only about Sinai, but about transparency, national dignity, and the role of Greece as protector of one of Christianity’s oldest institutions.
__________________
