In any event, after examining the evidence referred to by the Patriarchate in an attempt to substantiate its claim, the simple conclusion is that it does not lead to the conclusion that the approval of the JNF officials was not obtained, and therefore they do not deprive the detail of its status as a binding contract. This is for the simple reason that these proofs all relate to the state of affairs that prevailed at the time who preceded to the date of the festive meeting at which the detail was read out to the parties. Thus, the Patriarchate referred to e-mail correspondence between Adv. Elhanani on behalf of the JNF and Adv. Mughrabi on behalf of the Patriarchate, in each of which an identical statement appeared on behalf of Adv. Elhanani in the following language: "[...] Any arrangement, including the wording of the documents that will be agreed, requires the approval of the JNF-accredited institutions, and as we have pointed out to you in all previous meetings, the matter has not yet been discussed and approved there" (emphasis added - 11). However, an examination of the dates of the aforementioned three e-mails shows that they were dated February 14, 2007 and February 27, 2007 (Appendices 17, 19 and 20 to the Patriarchate's appeal), i.e., about two weeks to a month Before The date of the festive meeting, which was held on March 12, 2007. Even in the words of Adv. Elhanani in his testimony, to which the Patriarchate referred, there is nothing that the Patriarchate wishes to conclude. Adv. Elhanani's testimony indicates that in his understanding, the approval of the JNF institutions is indeed required in order to give "binding validity to the transaction"; It also implies, at most, that at the time of the festive ceremony, the approval of the JNF institutions had not yet been given (transcript of October 31, 2017, p. 60). However, this does not teach that this approval was not received at all.
- The District Court accepted the position of the JNF and Hymanuta and ruled that the approval of the authorized institutions in the JNF had been obtained, referring to the summaries of Himanuta's response that she referred in turn to Duvdevani's testimony (paragraphs 130, 162 of his judgment). An examination of Duvdevani's affidavit and his testimony in his cross-examination shows that in order to deal with the Patriarchate lands affair, a small five-member board of directors was established by the JNF's board of directors (following a conflict of interest involving the chairman, since Adv. Weinroth represented him in a certain matter). This committee was headed by Duvdevani, who served as associate chairman of the JNF's board of directors during the relevant period, and was authorized to discuss the issue and make decisions. It should be noted here that Duvdevani's testimony does not address the question of when the committee's approval of the settlement agreement was given (and he was not asked about it). However, Duvdevani testified that the Board of Directors Committee was authorized to discuss the matter and make decisions without drafting a transcript, in order to maintain confidentiality and avoid leaking them, and that he made it clear to the representatives of the Patriarchate that the JNF considers itself committed to the agreement and is willing to fulfill its obligations under it (transcript of March 4, 2019, pp. 145-150; paragraph 24 of his affidavit). What is important for our purposes is that even if it is possible to question the manner in which the board of directors conducted itself in this context and the lack of sufficient documentation, the court adopted the argument that the approval of the JNF officials was obtained, after Duvdevani testified before it.
To this, it should be added that the entire conduct of the JNF itself clearly supports the conclusion that the required approvals were obtained, since it was the one who insisted on the fulfillment of the particular, acted to bring about the Patriarchate's signature of the settlement agreement, and later turned to the courts for the purpose of enforcing the obligations set forth therein, while the Patriarchate was the one who sought to refrain from doing so.
- In short, Adv. Elhanani's correspondence and testimony do not show that the approval of the JNF institutions was never given, but at most that at the time of the festive meeting on which the detail was read, this approval of the settlement agreement had not yet been received - which is self-evident, since the detail states that the agreement "will be brought for their approval" of the JNF's accredited institutions. The bottom line is that the court made a factual finding in this matter according to which the approval of the authorized bodies in the JNF is indeed Accepted, among other things, after Duvdevani testified before him, and I did not find in the Patriarchate's arguments a convincing reason why this finding should be intervened.
Interim Summary
- Let us briefly return to the main points we discussed above:
The two parties, the Patriarchate and the JNF, have decided to enter into a binding agreement, as is clearly evident from the language and circumstances of the conclusion of the Particular; The agreement met the requirement of specificity; There was no legal impediment that deprived the Patriarch of his competence to enter into an agreement; The conditions and approvals required by the Decree for the parties to sign the settlement agreement - receiving a letter of recognition from the Government of Israel, receiving the approval of the Holy Synod, and obtaining the approval of the JNF's authorized institutions - were all met.