Urban Odyssey

Appearance

SPONSORS
Hypnotize SVG Iconmahanism
By Urban

Shimon Peres Deeds Jerusalem to the Pope (1993-94) ​

Overview ​

The provided sources consist of conspiracy-theory articles by Barry Chamish, which allege a secret plot by the Vatican and the Jesuit Order to take control of Jerusalem, alongside official diplomatic agreements between the Holy See and the State of Israel. Chamish’s work accuses Israeli leaders like Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin of treasonously negotiating the internationalization of Jerusalem and handing over control of holy sites to the Vatican through secret clauses in the Oslo Accords. Conversely, the official documents, titled the "Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel" (1993) and the "Legal Personality Agreement" (1997), establish full diplomatic relations, affirm a commitment to religious freedom and the protection of Holy Places, and grant the Catholic Church legal status within Israel. The contrasting texts highlight a tension between allegations of a global Catholic conspiracy and the establishment of formal, bilateral agreements aimed at normalizing relations.

The Vatican Conspiracy: An Overview of Barry Chamish's Theory ​

Introduction: A Secret Deal for Jerusalem? ​

This document outlines the conspiracy theory promoted by investigative journalist Barry Chamish, which alleges a secret plot by Israeli politician Shimon Peres to transfer sovereignty over Jerusalem's Old City to the Vatican. According to Chamish, this plan was not an isolated act but a crucial step in a larger, centuries-old conspiracy orchestrated by the Society of Jesus, more commonly known as the Jesuits, to achieve global dominance.

1. The Core Accusation Against Shimon Peres ​

The central claim of the theory is that Shimon Peres, acting as a Vatican agent, made a secret promise to give up Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem's Old City. This allegation originates from a claim by French intellectual Marek Halter, a friend of Peres, who stated in a March 1994 interview that he personally delivered a letter from Peres to the Pope in May 1993.

According to Halter, the letter detailed the terms of a secret deal:

  • The United Nations would gain political control of the Old City of Jerusalem.
  • The Vatican would be granted hegemony over the holy sites within that territory.
  • The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) would be given a capital within this new UN-controlled area.

Chamish presents a trail of subsequent events and documents as evidence to support this explosive claim.

2. The Trail of "Evidence" ​

Barry Chamish builds his case on four key pieces of alleged evidence that he argues substantiate the existence of Peres's secret deal.

  1. Marek Halter's Interview: The initial public claim came from Halter himself in a March 1994 interview with the newspaper Chadashot, where he described delivering Peres's letter to the Pope.
  2. The La Stampa Report: The Italian newspaper La Stampa allegedly backed Halter's story, adding the significant detail that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was aware of the agreement.
  3. The Leaked Cable: The leak of a diplomatic cable from the Israeli Embassy in Rome that seemingly confirmed the handover, which Chamish notes Peres dismissed with the "cockamamie" claim that the word "not" had been whited out.
  4. The Clinton Meeting Minutes: Minutes from a 1997 meeting with Bill Clinton where Peres allegedly provided direct confirmation of his commitment, reportedly stating his intentions "as I had previously promised the Holy See."

This specific accusation against Peres is framed by Chamish as just one component of a much larger and more profound historical plot.

3. The Jesuit Connection: The "Real Power" ​

According to Chamish, who heavily references the work of author Eric Jon Phelps (Vatican Assassins), the plot to control Jerusalem is rooted in a long-term Jesuit agenda. The theory posits that the Society of Jesus is the "real power" behind global events and Israel's most dangerous enemy. The ultimate goal of the Jesuits, as described in the source, is to "return the planet to the good old days when one pope held the monopoly on world religion" and to methodically eliminate all competitors, including Jews.

This grand conspiracy theory includes two shocking historical claims:

  • Orchestrating Zionism: The theory alleges that the Jesuits, through their control of Great Britain, were the "real force behind Zionism" and the creation of modern Israel.
  • Fueling the Holocaust: The theory claims that the Jesuits deliberately stirred up the pogroms and the Holocaust in Europe. The purpose was to drive terrified Jews to their designated "safe haven" in Israel, thereby populating the new state to serve the Jesuits' ultimate purpose. To support this, Chamish (via Phelps) alleges that Hitler patterned the SS after the Jesuit Order, with the implementation carried out by Heinrich Himmler, who had a Jesuit uncle. The theory quotes Adolf Hitler's alleged statement: "I have learnt most of all from the Jesuit Order." This is followed by what the source calls a "most penetrating question" from author Edmund Paris: "Who then was sending so many million deportees to death? Was it Heinrich Himmler or his uncle, the Jesuit canon?"

This narrative presents a network of key individuals and organizations working to fulfill this multi-generational plan.

4. Key Players and Their Alleged Roles ​

Chamish's theory identifies several key figures and groups, assigning them specific roles within the alleged conspiracy to hand over Jerusalem.

PlayerAlleged Role in the ConspiracyKey Action/Attribute Cited by Chamish
Shimon PeresLabor Zionist leader and primary Vatican agent in IsraelAllegedly promised control of Jerusalem to the Vatican in a secret 1993 letter.
The Jesuits (Society of Jesus)The "real power" behind global events and enemies of JudaismOrchestrated Zionism and the Holocaust to populate Israel for their ultimate goal.
The Vatican (The Holy See)The central religious authority seeking global hegemonyAims to gain control over Jerusalem's holy sites as part of its quest for a world religion.
Yossi BeilinPartner of Peres and founder of the Oslo AccordSimultaneously negotiated the Oslo Accord with the PLO and a separate agreement with the Vatican; allegedly included hidden clauses transferring "extra-territoriality of holy sites" to Vatican control.
Edgar Bronfman Sr.Key facilitator of Vatican-Israel relationsAs President of the World Jewish Congress, was appointed to conduct official contacts between the Vatican and Israel in 1991.
Eric Jon PhelpsAuthor of Vatican AssassinsProvided the historical framework and evidence for the overarching Jesuit plot.
Bill ClintonFormer US President and Jesuit-educated figureEducated at Jesuit Georgetown University, a Rhodes Scholar, and allegedly part of the plan to "ignite the flames that will engulf Israel." Chamish highlights his presence in Oslo during peace negotiations as suspicious.

With these players in place, the theory outlines a definitive and startling end-game for their efforts.

5. The Ultimate Goal: A Temple for the Pope ​

The final objective of this elaborate, centuries-long conspiracy is, according to Chamish and Phelps, both simple and audacious. The entire purpose of creating the state of Israel and maneuvering to secure control of Jerusalem is to pave the way for the "infallible" Pope to "receive worldwide worship from Solomon's rebuilt Temple." In this view, the ongoing "peace process" involving the PLO is not a genuine effort for regional stability but is merely the political mechanism designed to achieve this ultimate handover of Jerusalem to the Vatican.

6. Conclusion: The Pillars of the Theory ​

Barry Chamish's sprawling conspiracy theory can be distilled into three fundamental pillars that form the core of his narrative.

  1. Peres's Secret Pact: The theory's immediate focus is the claim that Israeli leader Shimon Peres secretly promised control of Jerusalem's holy sites to the Vatican.
  2. The Jesuit Master Plan: This secret pact is presented as one part of a centuries-old Jesuit plot that allegedly included orchestrating both the Zionist movement and the Holocaust to serve its own ends.
  3. The Final Objective: The ultimate goal of this grand conspiracy is to rebuild Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, not for the Jewish people, but for the Pope to rule from as the head of a single world religion.

Investigative Brief: Analysis of Alleged Vatican-Jesuit Plot for Control of Jerusalem ​

1.0 Introduction: Defining the Scope of the Investigation ​

This brief provides a detailed analysis of a prominent conspiracy theory, articulated by investigative journalist Barry Chamish, which alleges a long-term plot by the Vatican and the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) to seize control of Jerusalem's holy sites from the State of Israel. The purpose of this document is to synthetically reconstruct the narrative of this alleged plot, from its historical underpinnings to specific political actions undertaken in the 1990s, based exclusively on the information contained within the provided source materials. The analysis will deconstruct the claims as they are presented, focusing on the chronological events, key actors, and interpretation of official documents that form the basis of the theory. The tone is strictly analytical, aimed at explaining the structure and content of the narrative itself. This investigation begins by examining the deep historical foundations upon which the alleged modern conspiracy is built.

2.0 The Foundational Thesis: Historical Precedents and Ultimate Objectives ​

To understand the core claims of the conspiracy narrative, it is essential to first examine the historical context that underpins it. According to the source material, the alleged plot to control Jerusalem is not a recent development but the culmination of centuries-old objectives pursued by the Jesuit Order. Based on the writings of Barry Chamish and his cited source, Eric Jon Phelps's Vatican Assassins, the central historical claims are as follows:

  • The formation of the Jesuit Order was a direct reaction to the Protestant Reformation, with the ultimate objective of restoring a global religious monopoly under the authority of the Pope.
  • The narrative contends that the Jesuits instigated European pogroms and the Holocaust to compel Jewish migration to a "safe haven" in the Middle East that the Order intended to control.
  • The charge is made that modern Zionism and the State of Israel are, therefore, creations of the Jesuit Order, designed to serve its long-term geopolitical interests.
  • The theory claims that Adolf Hitler patterned his SS directly after the Jesuit Order. This is supported by quoting Walter Shellenberg, Chief of the Nazi SD, and Hitler himself: "In Himmler I see our Ignatius de Loyola." The source material adds to this by citing author Edmund Paris, who poses the "penetrating question" of whether the true authority behind the deportations was Heinrich Himmler or his uncle, a Jesuit priest and high-ranking SS officer described as the "eye and arm" of the Jesuit General.

The ultimate objective of this alleged multi-century grand strategy is explicitly stated: to "secure Jerusalem for the Jesuits' 'infallible' Pope, that he may receive worldwide worship from Solomon's rebuilt Temple." With this broad historical framework established, the narrative then shifts its focus to the specific covert actions alleged to have taken place in the 1990s to bring this long-term goal to fruition.

3.0 The Covert Plot: Alleged Actions and Secret Agreements (1991-1997) ​

The 1990s, particularly the period surrounding the Oslo peace process, are presented within the narrative as the critical era when the historical plot manifested as direct political action. According to Barry Chamish, a series of covert agreements and maneuvers were orchestrated to secretly cede Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem to the Vatican. The following chronological narrative traces this alleged secret plot:

  • May 1993: The French intellectual Marek Halter allegedly delivered a letter from Shimon Peres to the Pope. According to Halter, the letter promised to internationalize Jerusalem, grant the United Nations political control of the Old City, and give the Vatican "hegemony of the holy sites."
  • September 1993: The Italian newspaper La Stampa allegedly reported that this agreement was included in the secret clauses of the Declaration of Principles (Oslo Accords) signed in Washington.
  • March 1995: A cable from the Israeli Embassy in Rome, leaked to the radio station Arutz Sheva, allegedly confirmed the handover of Jerusalem to the Vatican. In the ensuing scandal, Peres denied the claim, stating the cable was real but that the word "not" had been "whited out." The narrative treats the subsequent reaction with disdain, noting, "Illustrating the sorry political state of Israel's rabbis, they accepted this cockamamie excuse."
  • 1997: In minutes from a meeting with President Bill Clinton, Shimon Peres is alleged to have reiterated his commitment, concluding his remarks with the words, "as I had previously promised the Holy See."

The narrative details methods allegedly used to neutralize opposition. After hidden details of Yossi Beilin’s accord with the Vatican were leaked to them, Agudat Yisrael head Avraham Shapira was reportedly silenced by the forgiveness of $250 million in debts from his factory. In a more sinister allegation, Jerusalem Deputy Mayor Shmuel Meir, also privy to the secret details, was killed when his car was crushed by a UN truck driven by a PLO operative who was subsequently released. These secret actions are presented as the hidden engine driving the more public, official agreements signed between Israel and the Holy See during this same period.

4.0 Overt Manifestations: Deconstructing the Israel-Holy See Agreements ​

While the conspiracy narrative is built on secret dealings, it incorporates official agreements as the public face of the plot. The 1993 Fundamental Agreement and the 1997 Legal Personality Agreement are analyzed not as good-faith diplomatic achievements, but as the legal mechanisms for implementing the covert plan.

The Fundamental Agreement (1993) ​

This agreement, which established full diplomatic relations, is framed as a foundational step. While its Preamble speaks of "reconciliation and growth in mutual understanding," specific articles are interpreted differently:

  • Article 4: The commitment to "maintain and respect the 'Status quo' in the Christian Holy Places" is juxtaposed directly against the core allegation of a secret plan to transfer "Vatican hegemony" over these same sites.
  • Article 10: Within the conspiracy framework, Article 10 is interpreted not as a standard diplomatic clause, but as the procedural mechanism designed to facilitate the large-scale transfer of property and assets required to fulfill the covert agreement.
  • Article 14: The establishment of full diplomatic relations is presented as the formal framework necessary to execute the deeper, sovereign transfers of authority.

This subsequent agreement is presented as the legal instrument for embedding the Catholic Church's power directly into Israeli law. Its stated purpose is to give "full effect in Israeli law to the legal personality of the Catholic Church itself" and its various institutions.

  • Articles 2-5: These articles formally recognize the legal personality of numerous Catholic entities—including Patriarchates, Dioceses, and the Custody of the Holy Land—and are framed as a broad legal entrenchment of Vatican-controlled entities on Israeli soil.
  • Article 6: This article, which states that matters concerning the authority of Church officials are "governed by the canon law," is interpreted as creating a sovereign legal enclave for the Catholic Church within Israel. In this view, its internal governance, appointments, and authority structures operate entirely under canon law, effectively placing them beyond the jurisdiction of the Israeli legal system.

These official documents are thus presented not as evidence against the conspiracy, but as its carefully constructed public facade, leading directly to the individuals accused of orchestrating it.

5.0 Profile of Key Actors and Their Alleged Roles ​

The narrative identifies a small group of high-level individuals and organizations as central to executing the plot. Their backgrounds and actions are woven together to create a cohesive picture of a coordinated effort.

  • Shimon Peres: Characterized as the primary Israeli agent of the Vatican. The narrative highlights his early education at a Jesuit school and places him at the center of the conspiracy as the author of the alleged 1993 letter to the Pope and the driving force behind the diplomatic push.
  • Yossi Beilin: Identified as Peres's "partner in crime" and the "real founder of the Oslo Accord." The narrative asserts he "coordinated his PLO policy with the Vatican" and implicates him directly in the alleged cover-up concerning the secret accord, details of which were leaked to Shapira and Meir. He is noted as the official Israeli signatory on both the Fundamental Agreement and the Legal Personality Agreement with the Holy See.
  • The Society of Jesus (Jesuits): The narrative posits the Jesuits as the ultimate masterminds behind the entire conspiracy, branding them "Israel and Judaism's most vicious and successful enemy." It alleges that they control powerful secular organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and orchestrate major world events to achieve their final objective in Jerusalem.
  • Bill Clinton: His connection is established through his time as student president at the Jesuit's Georgetown University. His presence in Oslo is cited as evidence of his role in furthering the Jesuit agenda for Israel's "destruction," with the source noting he met Jesuit Friar Richard McSorely and was seen "stepping off the train right behind him in Oslo."

6.0 Conclusion: Synthesis of the Conspiracy Narrative ​

This investigation has deconstructed the core components of the conspiracy theory alleging a Vatican-Jesuit plot against Israel, as articulated by Barry Chamish. The narrative's central thesis is that the Oslo Accords and the subsequent diplomatic normalization between Israel and the Holy See were a sophisticated smokescreen for a long-planned operation to transfer sovereignty over Jerusalem's holy sites to the Vatican.

The argument functions by weaving together alleged secret agreements, the specific actions of high-level politicians like Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, and a targeted interpretation of official public documents. This creates a cohesive, albeit conspiratorial, worldview in which seemingly disparate events are connected to a single, centuries-old Jesuit agenda. Ultimately, the narrative presented by Chamish offers a specific, alternative framework for interpreting major geopolitical events concerning Israel, the Vatican, and the Middle East peace process during the 1990s.

An Analysis of the Vatican-Israel Relationship: Official Agreements and Clandestine Allegations ​

1.0 Introduction: Two Competing Narratives ​

The establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel in the 1990s marked a pivotal moment in the history of both entities. This analysis deconstructs two starkly contrasting narratives that emerge from the available source materials concerning this relationship. The first is the public record, codified in official agreements that articulate a framework for mutual recognition, religious freedom, and legal cooperation. The second is a persistent undercurrent of allegations concerning secret geopolitical arrangements, driven by a profound conspiratorial framework.

This report seeks to objectively examine both narratives, drawing exclusively from the provided texts to illuminate the strategic interests at play. By juxtaposing the transparent language of international law against the shadowy claims of covert diplomacy, this analysis aims to provide a clear understanding of the deep chasm that separates the official story from its alleged counterpart. The structure of this document will proceed from an examination of the official accords to a detailed exposition of the contentious allegations, followed by a comparative assessment of their geopolitical implications.

2.0 The Public Record: The Fundamental and Legal Personality Agreements ​

The foundation of the official Vatican-Israel relationship is codified in two key documents: the 1993 Fundamental Agreement and the 1997 Legal Personality Agreement. These texts represent the formal, legally-binding baseline upon which diplomatic ties were built. Understanding the specific commitments and legal frameworks established in these public agreements is essential for measuring them against the vastly different claims that circulate in alternative narratives.

2.1 The 1993 Fundamental Agreement: Establishing Diplomatic Foundations ​

The Fundamental Agreement of December 1993 established the principles governing the new relationship between the Holy See and the State of Israel. Its core commitments laid the groundwork for normalization and future cooperation.

  • Mutual Recognition and Religious Freedom: Based on Articles 1 and 3, both parties affirm their commitment to the human right to freedom of religion and conscience. The State of Israel explicitly recognizes the right of the Catholic Church to carry out its religious, moral, educational, and charitable functions, while the Church recognizes the right of the State to promote the welfare and safety of its people. This establishes a baseline of mutual respect for each other's distinct spheres of authority.
  • Commitment Against Antisemitism: Article 2 contains a joint commitment to combatting antisemitism. Critically, the Holy See reiterates its condemnation of "hatred, persecution and all other manifestations of antisemitism directed against the Jewish people." This clause represents a major institutional shift for the Catholic Church in its post-Holocaust relationship with the Jewish people, building on transformative declarations like the Second Vatican Council's Nostra aetate.
  • Preservation of the "Status Quo": Article 4 affirms both parties' commitment to maintaining and respecting the "Status quo" in the Christian Holy Places. This was a crucial provision to ensure stability and continuity in the administration of sites of immense religious importance and historical sensitivity.
  • Framework for Future Negotiations: Article 10 establishes a process for resolving outstanding property, economic, and fiscal matters. It commits both parties to negotiate in good faith, signaling an intent to address complex historical claims through dialogue rather than unilateral action.
  • Establishment of Full Diplomatic Relations: Article 14 formalizes the ultimate goal of the process: the establishment of full diplomatic relations at the level of an Apostolic Nunciature and an Embassy.

Within this framework of normalization, Article 11, § 2 contains a clause of profound geopolitical significance. It states the Holy See's commitment "to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders." This declaration is a masterstroke of Vatican diplomacy. It allows the Holy See to engage with Israel on matters crucial to the Church—such as property, legal status, and the Holy Places—while formally recusing itself from the most intractable aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This strategic neutrality preserves its moral authority and diplomatic flexibility on the world stage.

2.2 The 1997 Legal Personality Agreement: Codifying Ecclesiastical Status ​

Created pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Fundamental Agreement, the 1997 Legal Personality Agreement provides the detailed legal mechanics for recognizing the status of the Catholic Church and its various entities within Israeli law. Its primary function was to translate the Church's canonical legal personality into a status that is fully effective and recognized by the Israeli legal system.

The core provisions and their implications are detailed below:

ProvisionLegal Implication for the Catholic Church in Israel
Assurance of Legal Personality(Articles 2-5) The agreement ensures that the legal personality of the Catholic Church itself, as well as specified entities like the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates, the Custody of the Holy Land, and Pontifical Institutes, is given full effect in Israeli law.
Governing Law(Article 6) This provision creates a dual framework. While Israeli law governs legal transactions with external parties, internal ecclesiastical matters—such as the appointment, authority, and powers of Church officials—are governed exclusively by canon law, thus protecting the Church's internal autonomy.
Burden of Proof(Article 8) The agreement strategically places the burden of proof on any party claiming that a Church entity was not a legal person before the agreement came into force. This preempts challenges to the long-standing, pre-existing status of many Catholic institutions in the Holy Land.

These meticulous legal instruments, however, stand in stark contrast to the clandestine narrative that emerged concurrently, which posits an entirely different set of motives and outcomes.

3.0 The Shadow Narrative: Allegations of a Secret Jerusalem Protocol ​

Parallel to the official diplomatic process, a counter-narrative of secret dealings emerged. This counter-narrative, primarily articulated by investigative journalist Barry Chamish, represents a classic example of a conspiratorial framework used to reinterpret official state actions as evidence of profound betrayal. This section documents these specific allegations and their attributed sources as presented in the provided text, maintaining a clear distinction between these claims and the official record.

3.1 The Peres-Vatican Letter and the Oslo Accords ​

The core allegation, as described by Chamish, centers on the actions of Shimon Peres during the period leading up to and following the Oslo Accords. The claims are presented as a sequence of deliberate steps to cede Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem.

  1. May 1993 Letter: According to Chamish, citing French intellectual Marek Halter, Shimon Peres sent a letter to the Pope in May 1993. In it, Peres allegedly promised to internationalize Jerusalem, grant the UN political control of the Old City, and give the Vatican hegemony over the holy sites.
  2. Inclusion in Oslo Accords: Chamish cites the Italian newspaper La Stampa, which claimed that PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat was aware of this agreement and that it was included in secret clauses of the Declaration of Principles signed in Washington in September 1993.
  3. The Leaked Cable: The narrative points to a March 1995 incident where a cable from the Israeli Embassy in Rome was leaked to the radio station Arutz Sheva. The cable allegedly confirmed the handover of Jerusalem to the Vatican. In the ensuing political scandal, Peres reportedly claimed the word "not" had been "whited out" of the cable.
  4. Reiteration of the Promise: Chamish asserts that in the widely distributed minutes of a 1997 meeting with President Clinton, Peres reiterated his commitment to this diplomacy, concluding with the words, "as I had previously promised the Holy See."

3.2 The Role of Yossi Beilin ​

The Chamish text identifies Yossi Beilin, a key signatory of the Fundamental Agreement, as the "real founder of the Oslo Accord" and a central figure in this alleged plot. Beilin is accused of coordinating his PLO policy directly with the Vatican, with his negotiations reportedly including a deal for the "extra-territoriality of holy sites in Jerusalem to be transferred to Vatican control."

The narrative further claims that opposition to this secret deal was systematically neutralized. Avraham Shapira, head of Agudat Yisrael, was allegedly silenced by having $250 million in debts forgiven. Shmuel Meir, Jerusalem's Deputy Mayor, was "permanently hushed when his car was crushed by a UN truck driven by a PLO driver," who was subsequently released.

The power of this shadow narrative lies in its ability to weave known public figures and official processes into a clandestine framework, making extraordinary claims feel more grounded to a skeptical audience. These specific allegations are presented not as isolated acts, but as tactical steps within a much larger conspiracy.

4.0 The Jesuit Conspiracy Framework: An Ideological Context ​

The source material from Barry Chamish grounds its specific allegations about a Jerusalem handover within a broader and more profound conspiracy theory attributed to the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits). This section's purpose is not to validate these claims but to outline the ideological framework presented in the text, as it is posited as the ultimate motivation for the alleged actions of Israeli leaders. This framework, drawn from Eric Jon Phelps' "Vatican Assassins," provides the "why" behind the purported secret agreements.

4.1 Jesuit Influence and Historical Manipulation ​

The core tenets of the Jesuit conspiracy theory, as detailed in the source, paint a picture of centuries-long manipulation of global events to achieve a singular goal.

  • Ultimate Goal: The fundamental objective of the Jesuit Order is to return the planet to a state where the Pope holds a monopoly on world religion, eliminating all competition.
  • Creation of Zionism: The theory claims that Jesuit control over Great Britain was the driving force behind the modern Zionist movement and the creation of the State of Israel.
  • The Holocaust as a Tool: It asserts that the Jesuits instigated the Holocaust to drive European Jews to Israel, thereby populating the state they had created for their own purposes.
  • SS Modeled on Jesuits: The text quotes Nazi official Walter Shellenberg and Adolf Hitler to support the claim that the structure of the Nazi SS was directly modeled on the Jesuit Order. Hitler is quoted as saying, "I have learnt most of all from the Jesuit Order... In Himmler I see our Ignatius de Loyola."

4.2 The Alleged Endgame for Israel ​

This conspiratorial framework culminates in a specific and startling conclusion regarding Israel's ultimate purpose. The actions of Israeli leaders are interpreted as the final stages of a plan set in motion long ago. The text states:

"Zionist Israel is a creation of the Jesuit Order. Its purpose is to secure Jerusalem for the Jesuits 'infallible' Pope, that he may receive worldwide worship from Solomon's rebuilt Temple. If the Masonic Zionists betrayed their own Jewish race into Pius XII's concentration camps overseen by the Jesuit Order, would they not betray the nation of Israel by giving Jerusalem to the Pope in preparation for the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple?"

This framework is also used to interpret the actions of other world leaders. For example, Bill Clinton's involvement in the peace process is linked to his time as a student president at the Jesuit Georgetown University, suggesting he was an agent of the same agenda. This exposition of the alleged underlying ideology provides the necessary context for the final analysis, which will juxtapose this conspiratorial framework with the official diplomatic record.

5.0 Comparative Analysis and Strategic Implications ​

This section provides the analytical core of the report, juxtaposing the verifiable, public record of the Vatican-Israel agreements against the allegations of secret protocols and conspiratorial motives. The strategic importance of this comparison lies in evaluating the vast chasm between the two narratives and assessing the potential implications derived from each, revealing two fundamentally irreconcilable versions of history and intent.

5.1 Stated Goals vs. Alleged Motives ​

The objectives of the key actors, as presented in the official documents versus the Chamish narrative, could not be more different. The table below directly compares these stated and alleged goals.

ActorStated Objective (per Official Agreements)Alleged True Motive (per Chamish Narrative)
State of Israel (Peres, Beilin)To formalize diplomatic relations, establish a legal framework for the Catholic Church's operations within Israel, and cooperate on shared goals like combating antisemitism and promoting religious freedom.To systematically cede sovereignty over Jerusalem's Old City and Holy Sites to the UN and the Vatican, respectively, acting as agents of a centuries-old Jesuit plot to control the region.
The Holy See (Vatican)To formalize diplomatic ties, protect Catholic communities and property, combat antisemitism, and promote interfaith understanding while remaining neutral in temporal conflicts.To achieve hegemony over Jerusalem's holy sites as a critical step toward installing the Pope in a rebuilt Solomon's Temple, from which he will receive worldwide worship, fulfilling the Jesuit Order's ultimate goal.

5.2 Implications for Regional Stability ​

The geopolitical implications stemming from each of the two narratives are diametrically opposed, offering visions of either stability through diplomacy or chaos through conspiracy.

  • The Official Narrative: The formal agreements represent a de-escalatory and stabilizing diplomatic achievement. The official agreements seek to embed the relationship within the predictable framework of international law, thereby de-escalating potential religious conflicts and providing mutually agreed-upon channels for dispute resolution.
  • The Alleged Narrative: The consequences if the allegations were true would be profoundly destabilizing. Such a secret handover of sovereignty over Jerusalem would represent a catastrophic betrayal of public trust by Israeli leaders, potentially leading to massive internal political upheaval. On a regional level, altering the status of Jerusalem in favor of any single external entity would shatter the delicate balance of the "Status quo," likely inciting widespread conflict among nations and religions with deep ties to the city.

The contrast highlights how the official narrative reinforces regional order, while the alleged narrative describes actions that would guarantee its collapse.

6.0 Conclusion: A Relationship Defined by Duality ​

The relationship between the Vatican and the State of Israel, as portrayed in the source documents, is characterized by a fundamental duality. On one hand, there is a public, documented path of diplomatic normalization, articulated through meticulously crafted legal agreements that emphasize mutual respect, religious freedom, and a commitment to resolving conflicts through dialogue. This official record paints a picture of a rational, modern diplomatic relationship.

On the other hand, there exists a detailed and persistent narrative of covert agreements and vast geopolitical conspiracies, which reinterprets these same historical events as a plot to surrender Israeli sovereignty. This analysis reveals that the Vatican-Israel relationship is a textbook case of modern statecraft operating on two levels simultaneously: an official channel governed by international law and an unofficial, highly potent narrative space where public mistrust and historical grievances are weaponized to interpret geopolitical events. Without external validation, the true nature of the strategic interests at play is left open to the vastly different interpretations presented in the official record and its conspiratorial counter-narrative.

A Chronology Of The Attempt By The Vatican To Displace Israel From The Old City Of Jerusalem ​

Source

This chronology by Joel Bainerman Source: https://redmoonrising.com/chamish/vaticanagenda.htm

The “Chronology of Events” for the Vatican’s conquest of the Old City of Jerusalem is as follows- all of which can be verified via the sources of the information:

October 1991 ​

On October 12th, the head of the World Jewish Congress, Edgar Bronfman, is appointed head of the International Jewish Committee of Inter-religious Consultation to conduct officials contacts with The Vatican and the State of Israel.

March 1992 ​

On March 17th, Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek says: “The Israeli government should meet the Vatican’s demand to apply special status for Jerusalem.”

April 1992 ​

On April 1st, The Vatican announced that it “favors a Labor victory” in the June 1992 general elections in Israel.

On April 15th, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, one of the highest ranking diplomats at The Vatican, visits Israel for the first time but only meets with Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek.

June 1992 ​

The story of The Catholic Church’s attempt to abscond with the Old City of Jerusalem from the Jews begins in July 1992. According to the information on the Foreign Ministry website, literally from the moment the new Rabin-led Labor government took over from Yitzhak Shamir’s defeated Likud party, secret talks with the Vatican and the State of Israel began. What precipitated these secret talks? Who arranged these talks, and why? Why were they kept secret from the Israeli public? What was the end result of these agreements? Where do they stand today? The entire subject of Israel’s bi-lateral relations with the Vatican is intentionally kept locked away in secrecy. It is no wonder that nobody in Israel knows much about “Israel-Vatican relations” as it is never, ever reported on in the Israeli press.

The official story of the origins of Israel’s “secret channel contacts” between Beilin’s negotiating team and the Vatican comes about as a result of Shlomo Gur, a personal aide to Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin, who knew someone who put him in touch with Father David Jaeger. Father David Jaeger was president of the Catholic Court in Austin, Texas, and was brought up as an Israeli orthodox Jew who then converted to Catholicism and became a Father (not something that has happened to many Israelis who grew up Orthodox). From there, which according to the information on the Israel Foreign Ministry website was in July 1992 right after the new Rabin government took over power, nothing is known about the discussions until the agreement is signed on Dec. 30th, 1993. Nothing in the Israeli press. The info given on the actual agreement signed was very minimal and general in tone. This is probably one of the most important political contacts Israel has in the world’s “power structure” yet it isn’t reported on in the press. Thus no Israelis know about it. That is how it remains hidden.

November, l992 ​

The document which was used as the underlying ideological basis for the Vatican’s secret deal with Yossi Beilin and Shimon Peres was personally authored by Beilin. “The Illegitimacy of Israeli Sovereignty Over Jerusalem” outlines the Israeli government’s program for the future of Jerusalem and calls for the division of the Old City into cantons whose border posts will be under UN control.

The plan which led to the December, 1993 agreement between The Vatican and the State of Israel was originally discussed in November 1992 at the exact same time the first meetings in London took place to discuss an agreement between Israel and the PLO which led to the Oslo Agreements. The real goal was the Vatican attempt to take over the Old City of Jerusalem. Oslo, or, “peace between Israel and the Palestinians” was just a good cover story to hide what was really going on in another sphere of Israel’s foreign affairs.

September, 1993 ​

On the 10th of September, just three days before the signing of the Oslo Accords Washington, the Italian newspaper La Stampa reported that then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres concluded a secret deal with the Vatican to hand over sovereignty of Jerusalem’s Old City to the Vatican. the agreement and it was included in the secret clauses of the Declaration Of Principles signed on September 13th, 1993 in Washington, DC.

In the same week that Israeli Foreign Minister and chief Oslo architect Shimon Peres signed the Declaration of Principles with Yasser Arafat in Washington, the Israel-Vatican commission held a special meeting in Israel. Under the Vatican agreement the Israelis would give over control the Old City to the Vatican before the year 2000. The plan also calls for Jerusalem to become the second Vatican of the world with all three major religions represented but under the authority of the Vatican. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel but the Old City will be administered by the Vatican.

Arafat agreed to the plan just before the famous “handshake” in 1993, but when he realized that the Vatican was also going to let Israel share in the temple mount, he rejected it. (To get Arafat and the Palestinians “on board”), on February 14th, 2000, the PA did sign an agreement with the Vatican which recognized the Palestinians’ claims to East Jerusalem. The outbreak of the “Al Asqa Intifada” seven months after this agreement was signed may have been part of the commitment Arafat gave the Vatican as to what he would do for him in return for the Vatican acknowledging Palestinians claims to East Jerusalem and the right to statehood. The violence in the Middle East serves the Catholic Church’s interest especially if Jerusalem is the subject to discuss. By Arafat getting guarantees from the Vatican that no matter what he does the Europeans will not abandon him, then it makes sense for him to declare war on Israel in Sept 2000. The “Barak gave him everything at Camp David” is propaganda. Nothing was offered that the Knesset would have approved. The intifada could only have happened if Arafat had gotten assurances from major European powers that he would survive. The agreement on Feb 2000 would have made more sense if it had occurred three or four years previous. However its timing when it was makes the Sept 2000 intifada seem logical from Arafat’s perspective.

November 1993 ​

In a report in the Jerusalem weekly newspaper Kol Ha’ir, it was revealed that: “for the past six months, The Israeli government has been taking advice on the future of Jerusalem from a planning commission headed by a close aide of Teddy Kollek, Raanan Weitz, formerly the settlement director of the Jewish Agency. At a secret meeting on September 9, 1993, one day before Prime Minister Rabin signed the recognition agreement with the PLO in Israel, the forum met secretly and approved in principle a plan for Jerusalem concocted by Weitz, which he calls, “Metropolitan Jerusalem.”

December, 1993 ​

With absolutely no media coverage in Israel, on December 30th an “historic agreement with the Vatican” is publicly acknowledged. Called: “The Fundamental Agreement Between The Holy See and The State of Israel”, it declares:

“Mindful of the singular character and universal significance of the Holy Land. Aware of the unique nature of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, and of the historic process of reconciliation and growth in mutual understanding and friendship between Catholics and Jews;

“Having decided on 29 July 1992 to establish a ‘Bilateral Permanent Working Commission’, in order to study and define together issues of common interest, and in view of normalizing their relations”

Already within one month of taking power there was a special committee to further “Israeli-Vatican Relations”. From where did this initiative come so soon as the new government took office?

April 1994 ​

Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Shmuel Meir announces at a Jerusalem press conference that he had received information that properties promised to the Vatican in Jerusalem would be granted extraterritorial status. (In early 1996 Meir was killed in a very suspicious car crash whereby the driver who drove a UN truck into Meir’s car was not even charged.)

May 1994 ​

Marek Halter, a French intellectual/philosopher and a close friend of Peres, tells the Israeli weekly magazine HaShishi that he personally delivered a letter from Peres to the Pope in Sept, 1993 in which Peres promised to internationalize Jerusalem, granting the UN political control of the Old City of Jerusalem, and the Vatican hegemony of the holy sites within. The UN would give the PLO a capital within its new territory and East Jerusalem would become a kind of free trade zone of world diplomacy.

June 1994 ​

On June 15th, the Israeli government signs an agreement with The Vatican allowing the Catholic Church to participate in negotiations to determine the future of Jerusalem.

July, 1994 ​

On July 9th, 1994, the Vatican’s Foreign Minister, Jean-Louis Tauran, announces in Amman, Jordan: “Before territorial problems are resolved, we have to find international guarantees to safeguard the uniqueness of the city and assurances that never again one party should claim Jerusalem as its possession.”

November l994 ​

Israel signs a peace treaty with Jordan which, according to reports in Haaretz, Maariv, and Yediot Achronot, included secret clauses concerning water and Jerusalem. The agreement had been negotiated in London eight months before between Rabin, King Hussein, and Lord Victor Mishcon. As part of the agreement, Jordan would receive control over the Islamic Holy sites within a Vatican-controlled Old City of Jerusalem.

March 1995 ​

A cable from the Israeli Embassy in Rome to The Foreign Ministry was in Jerusalem is leaked to radio station Arutz Sheva, confirming the handover of Jerusalem to the Vatican. Two days later the cable made front page of Haaretz. In the widely distributed minutes of a meeting with President Clinton in 1997, Peres ended the cable with the words, “as I had previously promised the Holy See.”

April 1995 ​

Member of Knesset Avraham Shapira announced in the Knesset that he had information that all Vatican property in Jerusalem was to become tax exempt and that large tracts of real estate on Mount Zion were given to the Pope in perpetuity.

February l996 ​

A delegation from the Vatican met in Jerusalem with Palestinian Authority Religious Affairs Minister, Hassan Tahbob. Father Serge Sebastian, Secretary General of the Vatican, announced that the Holy See recognizes Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem. After Shimon Peres had replaced Yitzhak Rabin as Israel’s prime minister, Internal Security Minister Moshe Shachal refused to allow a Palestinian Authority meeting at the Vatican’s Notre Dame Hospice in Jerusalem. According to Shachal, the Palestinians were planning to “use the Vatican to circumvent the Oslo Accords.”

November, 1997 ​

On November 10th, the State of Israel and the Vatican sign the “Legal Personality Agreement” whereby the State of Israel agrees to “assure full effect law to the legal personality of the Catholic Church itself.” (What that means in plain english is anyone’s guess.)

February 2000 ​

Hedging its bets by having bi-lateral agreements with both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, on February 14th, Pope John Paul 11 meets Arafat in Rome to sign an accord to normalize relations between Roman Catholic churches in Jerusalem and PA. Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker Ahmed Qurei told The Jerusalem Post that the agreement is “recognition by the Catholic Church of the Palestinian claims to the eastern half of Jerusalem.” According to Arafat’s spokesperson, Nabil Abu Rudaineh, “Arafat had been lobbying for the idea of sharing undivided Jerusalem, and for creating a Vatican-style sovereignty in the Old City.” (Somehow we are supposed to believe that Arafat initiated this, and not the Vatican). The agreement calls for Jerusalem to be “an international city based on international resolutions and an international guarantee.” The pack was signed despite the Vatican having signed an agreement with Israel six years earlier on December 30th, 1993 which gave legal jurisdiction under Israeli law over the Church’s own institutions and assets in the Holy Land.

March 2000 ​

The Pope visits the Holy Land and repeats the Holy See’s insistence that” international oversight- ‘a special statute, internationally guaranteed’- would best safeguard the city’s holy sites and all its religions. The city of Jerusalem is the main obstacle to peace in the region.”

On March 27th, the Palestinian Authority says that The Vatican no longer insists on international status for the Old City of Jerusalem, and that The Vatican accepts the political division of the Old City between Israel and the Palestinians. (One has to wonder if this agreement had anything to do with Arafat’s decision to wage war on Israel six months later?)

October 2000 ​

In a speech to the United Nations on October 30th, Archbishop Renato Martino declared: “The “unique character” of Jerusalem as a city sacred to three great religions makes it essential that religious leaders, not politicians, control the holy sites.” In his meeting on October 26th with Lebanese Ambassador to the Vatican, Fouad Aoun, Pope John Paul 11 said that the city of Jerusalem should be given “specially guaranteed international status.”

January 2001 ​

Israel TV journalists secretly film under the Shrine Of Omar, the 7th century Islamic building which may have been deliberately constructed over the Holy of Holies, them most sacred prayer room of the ancient Jewish Temple. The video revealed a new and massive tunnel aimed directly at the most sacred core of Solomon’s and later, Herod’s Temples. During the Crusades the early 12th century chivalric order, The Knights Templer, dug under the ruins for nine years and found a network of tunnels where the Jewish priests hid their treasures form the marauding Romans in 70 CE. It was also assumed that the original records of the Jerusalem Church which prove that the Vatican was not practicing Christianity as its founders had intended, was buried in this spot. A pope with exclusive rights of divine interpretation was not part of G-d’s plan. If these scrolls were made public they would jeopardize Rome’s legitimacy. Thus it is imperative to The Vatican that the Jews be removed from the Temple Mount so that they don’t find these important scrolls. The PA is serving as the Vatican’s “building contractors” in this arrangement in the hope that the Vatican will side with the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel.

July 2002 ​

Israeli, US and German delegations at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Berlin have to fight a surprise proposal to internationalize Jerusalem’s Old City by the Italian delegation to the meeting. The head of the Italian delegation told Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the US-based Simon Weisenthal Center, that the main concern of the Italian government was that “in the future when there are peace discussions, the Palestinian entity will be given control of the Christian Holy sites.”

Why the secular government of Italy should be worried about this was not explained in the new item. (The Jerusalem Post, July 8th, 2002)

Article 1 ​

This Agreement is made on the basis of the provisions of the “Fundamental Agreement between the State of Israel and the Holy See”, which was signed on 30 December 1993, and then entered into force on 10 March 1994 (hereinafter: the “Fundamental Agreement”).

Article 2 ​

Recalling that the Holy See is the Sovereign Authority of the Catholic Church, the State of Israel agrees to assure full effect in Israeli law to the legal personality of the Catholic Church itself.

Article 3 ​

  1. The State of Israel agrees to assure full effect in Israeli law, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, to the legal personality of the following:
    1. these Eastern Catholic Patriarchates: the Greek Melkite Catholic, the Syrian Catholic, the Maronite, the Chaldean, the Armenian Catholic (hereinafter: the “Eastern Catholic Patriarchates”);
    2. the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, id est the Latin Patriarchal Diocese of Jerusalem;
    3. the present Dioceses of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates;
    4. new Dioceses, wholly in Israel, Eastern Catholic or Latin, as may exist from time to time;
    5. the “Assembly of the Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land”.
    6. The Holy See states, for the avoidance of doubt, that the listing in par. 1 does not prejudice in any way the established order of precedence of the Heads of the various entities, according to their personal rank and as it is fixed by traditional usage and accepted by them.
    7. For the avoidance of doubt, it is stated that the question of assuring full effect in Israeli law to the legal personality of any new cross-border Diocese is left open.
    8. For the purposes of this Agreement, a Parish is in integral part of the respective Diocese, and, without affecting its status under the canon law, will not acquire a separate legal personality under Israeli law. A Diocese may, subject to the canon law, authorise its Parishes to act on its behalf, in such matters and under such terms, as it may determine.
    9. In this Agreement, “Diocese” includes its synonyms or equivalents.

Article 4 ​

The State of Israel agrees to assure full effect in Israeli law, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, to the legal personality of the Custody of the Holy Land.

Article 5 ​

The State of Israel agrees to assure full effect in Israeli law, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, to the legal personality of the following, as they exist from time to time in Israel:

  1. the Pontifical Institutes of Consecrated Life of the kinds that exist in the Catholic Church, and such of their Provinces or Houses as the Institute concerned may cause to be certified;
  2. other official entities of the Catholic Church.

Article 6 ​

  1. For the purposes of this Agreement the legal persons referred to in Articles 3-5 (hereinafter, in this Article: “legal person”), being established under the canon law, are deemed to have been created according to the legislation of the Holy See, being Sovereign in international law.

    1. the law which governs any legal transaction or other legal acts in Israel between any legal person and any party shall be the law of the State of Israel, subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (b).

  2. Any matter concerning the identity of the head, of the presiding officer or of any other official or functionary of a legal person, or their authority or their powers to act on behalf of the legal person, is governed by the canon law.

  3. Without derogation from the generality of sub-paragraph (b), certain kinds of transactions by a legal person concerning immovable property or certain other kinds of property, depend on a prior written permission of the Holy See in accordance with Its written Decisions as issued from time to time. Public access to the aforesaid Decisions will be in accordance with the Implementation Provisions.

    1. Any dispute concerning an internal ecclesiastical matter between a member, official or functionary of a legal person and any legal person, whether the member, official or functionary belongs to it or not, or between legal persons, shall be determined in accordance with the canon law, in a judicial or administrative ecclesiastical forum.

  4. For the avoidance of doubt it is stated that the provisions of 2(a) shall not apply to disputes referred to in the above sub-paragraph (a).

    1. For the avoidance of doubt, it is stated:
      1. a legal person, whose legal personality is given full effect in Israel, is deemed to have consented to sue and be sued before a judicial or administrative forum in Israel, if that is the proper forum under Israeli law.
      2. Sub-paragraph (a) does not derogate from any provision in Articles 6.

Article 7 ​

The application of this Agreement to any legal person is without prejudice to any of its rights or obligations previously created.

Article 8 ​

  1. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as supporting an argument that any of the legal persons to which this Agreement applies had not been a legal person prior to this Agreement.
  2. If a party makes a claim that such a legal person had not been a legal person in Israeli law prior to this Agreement, that party shall bear the burden of proof.

Article 9 ​

Should a question with regard to the canon law arise in any matter before a Court or forum other than in a forum of the Catholic Church, it shall be regarded as a question of fact.

Article 10 ​

The terms "ecclesiastical" and "canon law" refer to the Catholic Church and Its law.

Article 11 ​

  1. Without derogating from any provision, declaration or statement in the Fundamental Agreement, the ecclesiastical legal persons in existence at the time of the entry of this Agreement into force are deemed as being legal persons in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, if listed in the ANNEXES to this Agreement, which are specified in par. 4.
  2. The ANNEXES form, for all intents and purposes, an integral part of this Agreement.
  3. The ANNEXES will include the official name, respective date or year of establishment in the Catholic Church, a local address and, if the head office is abroad, also its address.
    1. ANNEX I lists the legal persons to which Article 3(1)(a, b, c, e) and Article 4 apply, as the case may be;
    2. ANNEX II lists the legal persons to which Article 5(a) applies;
    3. ANNEX III lists the legal persons to which Article 5(b) applies.

Article 12 ​

The other matters on which the Parties have agreed are included in the Schedule to this Agreement, named "Implementation Provisions", which forms, for all intents and purposes, an integral part of this Agreement, and references to the Agreement include the Schedule.

Article 13 ​

This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of the latter notification of ratification by a Party.

Done in two original copies in the Hebrew and English languages, both texts being equally authentic. In case of divergence, the English text shall prevail, except where explicitly provided otherwise in the Schedule.

Signed in Jerusalem this 10th day of the month of November in the year 1997, which corresponds to the 10th day of the month of Heshvan in the year 5758.

Download

(Download the full document or find it here)

Bibliography & Images ​

  1. Michael King (miketheking1517) Post (Screenshot Credits): https://x.com/miketheking1517/status/2000048842113233257?s=20
    1. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2000048842113233257.html
  2. INTER APOSTOLICAM SEDEM ATQUE ISRAELIS STATUM - FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOLY SEE AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL
  3. https://rense.com/general6/chamish.htm
  4. Video Credits: https://www.youtube.com/@HomieLand--Sickurity

Images & Screenshots ​

Image for Jerusalem Deeded to Pope

Jerusalem Deeded to Pope

Images & Screen Grabs Album on Imgur

Expand for Images