The same is true in our case. I do not see the particulars as a memorandum of understanding, so I should not be attributed an analysis of the particulars by means of the rulings that were established regarding the validity of a memorandum of understanding (paragraph 26 of my colleague's judgment). In my opinion, the particulars reflect a complete and detailed agreement, since two detailed appendices were attached to it, with Draft A set as the default if no notice is given by the Patriarchate that it chooses Draft B. The agreement was subject to conditions and obligations that were fully fulfilled, namely the receipt of the letter of recognition of the Patriarch, the confirmation of the Holy Synod (as mentioned, the Patriarch Commit obtain the approval) and the approval of the authorized bodies in the JNF. Once the letter of recognition has been received and it has been determined factually that the approval of the synod has been received, as well as the approval of the authorized bodies in the JNF, the agreement has been perfected, the Patriarch is considered to have undertaken to ratify the agreement, and the absence of a physical signature on the documents is a breach of the agreement.
- Parties to a binding agreement can, of course, reach an agreement to add these and other terms even after the agreement has been concluded, without this compromising the validity of the agreement, and without consequently viewing the binding agreement only as a stage in the negotiations. The same is true in our case. The negotiations, which took place about a year after the Particular, were conducted at the request of the Patriarchate, which requested to add a condition related to funding by a third party. This is not a matter of principle, without which there is no binding agreement, and the absence of this condition does not impair the validity of the particular. Just as parties to a real estate sale agreement can reach an agreement after the agreement is signed that the buyer will take out a mortgage in order to finance the purchase, under conditions that the seller will agree to. The same is true in our case. The JNF could have refused the request of the Patriarchate, but it granted the request against a condition it had set and which was related to the identity of the third party. This does not indicate that the detail was merely a stage in negotiations or an "auxiliary agreement" as my colleague put it.
In this context, I will note that there is no dispute that the Patriarchate ultimately found a source of funding for the agreement (the sums paid by the third party were not disclosed to us, but there is no dispute that the third party paid a substantial sum to the Patriarchate for its rights). Therefore, even the excuse that no source of funding has been found cannot stand up to the patriarchy.