In accordance with the provisions of the Particular, two appendices were attached to it, which constituted alternative drafts to the agreement in which the parties would enter:Draft A", the Patriarchate will compensate Himanuta in the sum of $13 million against Himanuta's waiver of its claims regarding the validity of the real estate transaction and the removal of the warning note that was registered in its favor; According to "Draft B," the Patriarchate will extend the state's lease rights in the land for an additional period of about 150 years (200 years from the date set in the agreement) in exchange for a payment of $4.5 million. As determined in the Particular, of the two alternatives, Draft A was determined by default for an agreement to be signed between the parties, while the Patriarchate's right to choose Draft B was subject to notification by the Patriarchate to the JNF within a certain period of time (paragraphs 3-4 above).
- Note: The pleadings and the evidence indicate that in the early stages of the negotiations, the alternative discussed by the parties was to extend the lease (Draft B). Later on, however, it was the patriarchy that proposed the alternative of providing payment in exchange for waiving claims and deleting the warning notes that were registered in favor of the JNF by virtue of the fraudulent transaction (Draft A). This, it seems, is due to the Patriarchate's intention to enter into a parallel transaction for the sale of the rights in the land to a third party that will bear the payment of the limanuta. In practice, these contacts of the patriarchate with the third party (the "super group") were unsuccessful. [According to Himanuta, the Patriarchate subsequently entered into an agreement with another business group for the sale of the rights in the land, which is allegedly behind the Patriarchate in the present proceeding].
On the date of the festive meeting described in which the parties "announced" the terms of the particular, the particularall was signed by the two witnesses, retired judges Mashali and Arbel, as well as by Adv. Weinroth, who kept the signed agreement in his hands. At that point in time, the Patriarch had not yet received a letter of recognition from the Israeli government, so he himself did not sign the particular. The question of the validity and legal status of the particular, as stated, is a matter of dispute between the parties, and it is a central axis on which our discussion revolves.
- On December 24, 2007, the Patriarch was given a letter of recognition on behalf of the Government of Israel. With the issuance of the letter of recognition, contacts between the parties were renewed, and on February 21, 2008, another meeting was held at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem in the presence of the Patriarch, during which a number of amendments were requested: inter alia, the Patriarchate requested that the amount of the settlement be financed by a third party; As a result, Himanuta sought to add to the agreements between the parties the signing of a "letter of convenience" or "approval of Judaism and Zionism" in the language of the patriarchy (hereinafter: The Comfort Letter), according to which the financier "is a private person, a Jew who does not belong to any political body, is a known donor to the State of Israel, and is certainly not hostile to the goals of the Jewish National Fund." These amendments were anchored in the final version of the Settlement Agreement, which was transmitted between the parties by electronic correspondence dated April 15, 2008. On the same day, another meeting was held between the parties at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem, also in the presence of the Patriarch.
- At this point, a deep chasm opened between the sides. According to Himanuta, the Patriarch and the Patriarchate undertook to sign the compromise agreement in a signing ceremony immediately after Passover; The Patriarch's counsel also reported that the Holy Synod (the supreme executive body of the Patriarchate, a council composed of senior clergy, including the Patriarch, bishops and priests) had been approved for the signing of the Compromise Agreement as required by Article 3 of the Protocol; But at this point, the Patriarchate stopped cooperating. On the other hand, according to the Patriarchate, the third party that was supposed to finance the settlement amount was left without funding to enable the execution of the settlement agreement; and that for this reason, the approval of the Holy Synod for the signing of the Settlement Agreement was not given.
In practice, a final settlement agreement has never been signed by the Patriarchate, hence the dispute between the parties, the focus of which is a central question - have the parties entered into a binding agreement?