The scandal was preventable: how the denial of entry to the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre affected Israel’s reputation

In Jerusalem on March 29, 20226, an episode occurred that on a normal day would have become an international scandal in itself, and in wartime turned out to be a test of common sense. Israeli police did not allow the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, and the Custodian of the Holy Land, Francesco Ielpo, into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where they were supposed to hold a Palm Sunday Mass. As a result, the service in the main church of the Christian world did not take place in the format that was prepared in advance, and the story itself quickly went beyond a church news item.

It is important to understand the context.

The Patriarchate had previously canceled the mass procession, complying with military restrictions, and emphasized that Pizzaballa and Ielpo were going to the church privately, without a procession and without a public event. In a joint statement, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Custody of the Holy Land wrote that both hierarchs were stopped on the way and forced to turn back, and therefore, as stated in the text, “for the first time in centuries,” the heads of the Church were unable to hold the Palm Sunday Mass in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

For the Israeli audience, this is no longer just a story about Christians.

This is a story about how, against the backdrop of war and constant restrictions, the state managed to create a crisis where it could have shown the exact opposite: respect for shrines, careful handling of internationally sensitive religious sites, and basic manageability in Jerusalem. Instead, it turned into a plot where Rome, the Vatican, Paris, and world media discuss not Iranian missiles, but how Israel did not allow the cardinal into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Why this episode turned out to be so painful

The Patriarchate claims it complied with all restrictions

The church side chose the most cautious line even before the scandal.

The Patriarchate reported that since the beginning of the war, the heads of the Churches have complied with all imposed restrictions: they canceled public events, did not allow parishioners, and prepared broadcasts of services for believers around the world. Reuters also quotes the Patriarchate’s representative Farid Jubran: the police were informed in advance that the Mass was to be held privately and behind closed doors.

So the dispute here is not about a thousand-strong procession in the narrow streets of the Old City and not about whether it is possible to gather crowds at shrines during the war.

This question, in essence, the church has already removed itself.

The dispute is about something else: why, with all the agreements and the refusal of a mass scenario, the police still decided that even the patriarch and the custodian of the holy place could not be allowed into the church. That is why the wording of the church statement turned out to be so harsh: the incident is called a “serious precedent,” an “obviously unreasonable and grossly disproportionate measure,” and a decision that violates the principles of freedom of religion and the status quo of shrines.

The police refer to the war, but the explanation did not remove the questions

The police explained the ban with security considerations. According to their version, the Old City and holy places are a complex zone where it is difficult to quickly bring in large emergency rescue forces, and therefore, in the event of mass casualties, the risk is especially high. Israeli and international sources note that since the beginning of the war, access to the Old City has been restricted, and gatherings in Jerusalem remain limited to about 50 participants with quick access to shelter.

But this is where the main crack in the official version arose.

Reuters writes that residents of the Old City and religious figures spoke about the inconsistent application of these restrictions. The agency notes that other holy places allowed individual clergy and small groups, and therefore the question quickly shifted from abstract “security” to a more unpleasant topic for the authorities — why in one case the rules are interpreted strictly, and in another flexibly.

Why the scandal quickly reached an international level

Italy saw this not as a local mistake, but as an insult to believers

Italy reacted the sharpest. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stated that the non-admission of religious leaders “insults not only believers but also any community that recognizes religious freedom.” Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani announced that the Israeli ambassador would be summoned for explanations. Almost immediately, Emmanuel Macron joined the criticism, calling the police decision another alarming episode in the chain of violations of the status quo of Jerusalem’s holy places.

For Israel, this is especially sensitive not because of the loudness of the wording, but because of the address from which they sounded. When not only church structures but also governments of friendly European countries react harshly, the incident ceases to be an internal police misfire. It turns into a diplomatic problem. Moreover, an absolutely man-made one, without any necessity.

This is the political weight of the story. In wartime, Israel asks the world for understanding, solidarity, and patience with strict security measures. But such arguments only work when the state demonstrates proportionality and consistency. When, under the pretext of risk, even the Latin patriarch is not allowed into the church, although, according to the church, it was about a private entrance and a pre-agreed broadcast, sympathy quickly turns into irritation.

Who will bear the political costs within Israel

The blow was not only to the police but to the entire religious-diplomatic management of the city

Within Israel, this story almost immediately became part of a broader debate about how the state handles the Christian shrines of Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Post writes that MP Gilad Kariv directly criticized National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and the atmosphere in which, according to critics, relations with church communities are becoming increasingly tense and conflictual. It is noted that this is no longer just an unfortunate police decision, but an unnecessary diplomatic and image crisis for the entire country.

It is important not to fall into simplification here.

There is no direct evidence in open sources that the order came personally from the political leadership. But political responsibility still lies above the level of a specific patrol. Because in Jerusalem, especially in the area of holy places, such decisions are never read as purely technical. They are read as an indicator of the general course. And if Cardinal Pizzaballa is not allowed to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday, the world draws conclusions not about the name of the commander on the spot, but about Israel as a whole.

That is why NANews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency considers this case not as a noisy episode of one difficult day, but as a warning. In Jerusalem, there are too many shrines, too much memory, and too many foreign policy nerves to allow decisions that seem ill-considered even in the logic of security itself. Martial law explains a lot, but it does not relieve the obligation to distinguish a real threat from administrative overreach.

The final conclusion here is unpleasant but simple. The scandal was preventable.

The Patriarchate had previously reduced the format, the church says it agreed on the order, and the international reaction shows: the world perceived the non-admission of Pizzaballa not as an inevitable measure of war, but as an offensive and disproportionate ban. For a country that is already fighting on several fronts, squandering the trust of such partners is too expensive a luxury.