Hey everyone, welcome back to My Weird Prompts. I am Corn, and I am sitting here in our living room in Jerusalem with my brother, the one and only Herman Poppleberry.
That is me! And honestly Corn, I have been looking forward to this one since breakfast. Our housemate Daniel sent over a prompt that hits literally right where we live. We talk about the politics of this city all the time, the diplomacy, the history, but we rarely talk about the actual dirt. Who owns the ground under our feet?
It is a great question because in Jerusalem, the answer is almost never simple. You might think you are dealing with the municipality or the state, but then you look at the fine print of a land deed and you realize you are actually negotiating with a patriarchate that has been here since the Byzantine Empire. Daniel was asking specifically about church ownership, how it affects development, and what those negotiations actually look like.
And it is a massive topic. People usually think of churches as just buildings, you know, a steeple here, a dome there. But in Jerusalem, the historical churches are some of the largest private landowners in the entire region. We are talking about thousands of dunams. And for our listeners who are not used to that measurement, a dunam is exactly one thousand square meters, or about a quarter of an acre. When you add it all up, the influence these institutions have on the layout of the city is staggering.
So let us start with the big players. If you are talking about land in Jerusalem, you have to start with the Greek Orthodox Church. Herman, they are basically the ultimate landlord of the city, right?
Without a doubt. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is widely considered the second or third largest landowner in the entire country, but in Jerusalem specifically, they are number one among the churches. They own huge swaths of the Old City, but it is their holdings in West Jerusalem that really complicate modern life. We are talking about neighborhoods like Rehavia, Talbiya, and Nayot. These are some of the most expensive, high-end residential areas in the city.
And this is where it gets weird for the residents. If you live in a beautiful apartment in Rehavia, you might own the four walls of your home, but you probably do not own the land. You are likely on a long-term lease from the Greek Orthodox Church.
Exactly. And most of those leases were signed back in the nineteen fifties. The Jewish National Fund took out ninety-nine-year leases on behalf of the residents. But here is the catch, Corn. Those ninety-nine years are starting to run out. We are looking at expiration dates in the early twenty-fifties. In the world of real estate, twenty-five or thirty years is a very short time.
That creates a massive amount of anxiety for homeowners. If the lease expires and the church decides not to renew it, or if they sell the land to a third party, what happens to the people living there? I have heard that this has actually started to affect property values and even the ability of people to get mortgages.
It absolutely has. Banks are very hesitant to give a thirty-year mortgage on a property where the underlying land lease expires in twenty-six years. It is a legal gray area that has led to some really intense friction. A few years ago, the church actually sold the rights to some of this land to private investment groups. Now, instead of a religious institution, the residents are dealing with for-profit developers who want to maximize their returns. This has led to protests and calls for the Knesset to pass legislation that would protect the homeowners, but it is a diplomatic minefield.
Because you cannot just expropriate land from a church without causing an international incident.
Exactly! These are not just local organizations. The Greek Orthodox Church has deep ties to Greece and Cyprus. If the Israeli government moves too aggressively against church property, it becomes a foreign policy crisis. It is this fascinating intersection of property law, ancient tradition, and modern geopolitics.
So that is the Greek Orthodox. Who else is on the list? I know the Armenian Church has been in the news lately regarding a specific plot of land.
Yes, the Armenian Patriarchate. They own about a sixth of the Old City, which is the entire Armenian Quarter. Recently, there has been a huge controversy over a site called the Cows Garden, or Goverou Bardez in Armenian. It is a large plot of land near the city walls that was used for parking and community events.
Right, I remember seeing the tents set up there. The community was basically camping out on the land to protect it.
That is right. The patriarchate had apparently signed a long-term lease with a developer to build a luxury hotel on that site. But the Armenian community felt this was a betrayal of their heritage and a threat to their presence in the city. It led to physical standoffs, legal challenges, and a lot of internal turmoil within the patriarchate itself. It really highlights Daniel's question about how this affects development. In any other city, a developer with a lease would just start digging. In Jerusalem, if that land belongs to a church, you might have an entire community and several foreign governments standing in your way.
It feels like every square inch has a story. What about the Catholics? The Latin Patriarchate and the various orders must own a significant amount as well.
They do, though their holdings are often more focused on specific institutions, schools, and hospitals. But then you have the sovereign-adjacent properties. This is something we have touched on before, but it is worth digging into. France, for example, owns several properties in Jerusalem that they treat with a very high level of diplomatic protection.
You are talking about the Church of Saint Anne and the Tombs of the Kings?
Precisely. These are part of what is called the Domaine National Français. While they are not technically sovereign French soil in the way an embassy is, the French government administers them directly. This is why you see those famous videos of French presidents like Jacques Chirac or more recently Emmanuel Macron getting into heated arguments with Israeli security personnel at the entrance to these sites. They are essentially saying, you have no authority inside these gates.
It is like a patchwork quilt of different jurisdictions. You walk through a door and suddenly the rules of the municipality might not apply in the same way.
And we cannot forget the Russians. The Russian Compound in the center of the city is a massive complex. Most of it was actually sold to Israel back in the nineteen sixties in a famous deal. The specifics of that transaction and its terms are part of the complex history of Russian property in Jerusalem.
The Russians still own the Cathedral there, and they have been very active in trying to reclaim other properties lately, right?
Very active. There has been a long-running dispute over Alexander's Court, which is right next to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. These are not just real estate deals; they are diplomatic leverage. For example, when an Israeli citizen named Naama Issachar was detained in Russia back in twenty-nineteen and early twenty-twenty, there were widespread reports that the Russian government was using her release as a way to pressure Israel over the ownership of Alexander's Court.
So, when Daniel asks who you contact when a church is the ultimate owner, it sounds like the answer might be the Ministry of Foreign Affairs rather than a real estate agent.
In many cases, yes. But if you are a regular person or a developer trying to do something more mundane, the process is incredibly opaque. Most of these churches do not have a standard customer service department. They have what is often called a Kabbaneh or a central administrative office.
And how do those negotiations typically unfold? I imagine it is not as simple as sending an email.
It is definitely not. It is all about relationships and long-term standing. These institutions think in centuries, not fiscal quarters. If you want to negotiate a lease extension or a zoning change on church land, you are often dealing with the church's lawyers, who are frequently from prominent local families that have represented the patriarchate for generations.
So there is a layer of local aristocracy involved in this.
Absolutely. There is a whole class of professionals in Jerusalem whose entire career is built on being the bridge between these ancient religious institutions and the modern Israeli legal system. They know how to navigate the internal politics of the church, which can be just as complex as the politics of the city itself. Often, the church is not even looking to sell. They want to maintain their presence and their income. So you end up with these incredibly long, complicated lease agreements that have all sorts of weird clauses about what can and cannot be done on the property.
Does this affect zoning in a practical way? Like, if the municipality wants to build a new light rail line or a park, and it crosses church land, can the church just say no?
They can certainly try, and they often do. The city usually tries to avoid direct conflict with the churches because of that international pressure we talked about. This often leads to weird detours or compromises. For example, you might see a road that takes a strange curve or a park that ends abruptly because the land owner across the line is a church that refuses to grant an easement.
It makes the city a nightmare for urban planners, I imagine.
Oh, it is their worst headache. Imagine trying to create a cohesive city plan when twenty or thirty percent of the land is owned by entities that are essentially exempt from certain types of pressure and have no interest in your five-year plan for urban renewal. It creates a lot of what we call dead zones in the city. These are plots of land that stay empty or dilapidated for decades because the church owner and the city cannot agree on what to do with them.
I am curious about the practical takeaways for someone who might be looking to buy a home here. If you see a property that is significantly cheaper than the market average in a nice neighborhood, is that a red flag that it might be church land?
It is the biggest red flag. In neighborhoods like Rehavia or Talbiya, if you see an apartment that looks like a steal, the first thing your lawyer should check is the land registry, the Tabu. If the land is owned by the Greek Orthodox Church and the lease expires in twenty-five years, that apartment is basically a ticking clock. You are not buying the property; you are buying the right to live there for the next quarter-century.
And what happens at the end of that clock is anyone's guess.
Exactly. Now, there have been some recent developments. The Israeli courts have been trying to find a middle ground. There was a major case involving the land sold to private developers where the court essentially said that while the sale was valid, the rights of the residents had to be protected. But the specifics of how that protection works are still being hammered out. It is a very risky investment for someone who just wants a stable home for their family.
It feels like the ultimate "buyer beware" situation. But it also means that these neighborhoods have a different character. They do not get torn down and rebuilt as quickly as other parts of the city because it is so hard to get all the permissions needed.
That is a great point, Corn. The church ownership actually acts as a form of accidental historic preservation. Because it is so difficult to develop this land, a lot of the beautiful old stone houses from the early twentieth century have survived, whereas in other parts of the city, they would have been replaced by high-rise towers long ago. The inefficiency of the system actually protects the aesthetic of the city in a weird way.
So, it is a double-edged sword. It preserves the beauty but creates a housing crisis and legal uncertainty.
Precisely. And for the churches, this land is their lifeblood. It provides the income they need to maintain the holy sites, run their schools, and support their clergy. They are not just being difficult for the sake of it; they are protecting their institutional survival in a city that has changed hands many times over the centuries. To them, the current government is just the latest in a long line of authorities they have had to deal with.
I think that is a really important perspective. If you are a church that has been here since the year four hundred, a ninety-nine-year lease is just a blink of an eye. You have seen empires rise and fall. Why would you be in a rush to settle a land dispute with a municipality that has only existed for seventy-odd years?
Exactly! They have a completely different relationship with time. When you sit down to negotiate with them, you are not just talking to a landlord; you are talking to history. And that is why these negotiations take years, sometimes decades.
It makes me wonder about the future. As the city continues to grow and the pressure for housing increases, something has to give. Do you think we will see a massive government expropriation at some point, or will the leases just keep getting extended in these piecemeal ways?
My guess is we will see a very complicated, very expensive compromise. The government might end up paying the churches a massive sum to effectively "buy out" the residential leases, or they will create a new legal framework that converts these leases into a form of permanent ownership while compensating the churches. But any move like that involves hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.
And a whole lot of diplomatic phone calls to Athens, Rome, and Moscow.
Oh, you better believe it. Every time a bulldozer moves near a church wall, a diplomat's phone starts ringing. It is just the reality of living in Jerusalem.
Well, this has been a fascinating look into the literal foundations of our city. Daniel, thank you for that prompt. It definitely made me look at the buildings on my walk home a little differently.
Same here. Next time I walk through Rehavia, I am going to be thinking about those nineteen fifties lease agreements and the complex history of property ownership in the Russian Compound.
Before we wrap up, I just want to say to our listeners, if you have been enjoying these deep dives into the quirks of our city and the weird prompts we get, we would really appreciate it if you could leave us a review on your podcast app or on Spotify. It genuinely helps other people find the show and keeps us going.
It really does. We love seeing the feedback and knowing that people are out there nerding out on this stuff with us.
You can find all of our past episodes at myweirdprompts.com. We have covered everything from diplomatic immunity to the history of the light rail, so there is plenty to explore if you are new to the show.
And if you have a weird prompt of your own, there is a contact form on the website. We are always looking for new rabbit holes to jump down.
Thanks for listening to My Weird Prompts. I am Corn.
And I am Herman Poppleberry. We will talk to you next time.
Bye everyone.
