Jerusalem's Church of Holy Sepulchre shuts down

[Quiddity]

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Church leaders in Jerusalem shut the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Sunday in protest at a new Israeli tax policy and a proposed land expropriation law which they called an unprecedented attack on Christians in the Holy Land.

Church leaders shut Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre in...

 

[Srivijaya]

"...a bill that would allow the state to expropriate land in Jerusalem sold by churches to private real estate firms in recent years."

So this is land that has already been sold and no longer owned by churches? So what's the problem?

"The stated aim of the bill is to protect homeowners against the possibility that private companies will not extend their leases of land on which their houses or apartments stand."

Sounds fair to me. Leasehold is quite precarious at the best of times.

"“This abhorrent bill ... if approved, would make the expropriation of the lands of churches possible,” said the statement by Theophilos III, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Francesco Patton, the Custos of the Holy Land, and Nourhan Manougian, the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem."

Would it? The article is too light on detail to draw any conclusion on that. It's either missed out this possibility, or those guys are crying wolf. Which is it?

"Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat said on Twitter it was illogical to expect that church-owned commercial property, including hotels and retail businesses, would continue to enjoy tax-exempt status."

Businesses pay taxes. Stop whinging and cough up. As long as Jewish and Muslim commercial property pays taxes, then that's fair. But do they? Not clear.

 

[sun rise]

"...a bill that would allow the state to expropriate land in Jerusalem sold by churches to private real estate firms in recent years."

So this is land that has already been sold and no longer owned by churches? So what's the problem?

As the quote you provided, the government seizing private property - that's what 'expropriation' means.

 

[Nakosis]

"...a bill that would allow the state to expropriate land in Jerusalem sold by churches to private real estate firms in recent years."

So this is land that has already been sold and no longer owned by churches? So what's the problem?

"The stated aim of the bill is to protect homeowners against the possibility that private companies will not extend their leases of land on which their houses or apartments stand."

Sounds fair to me. Leasehold is quite precarious at the best of times.

"“This abhorrent bill ... if approved, would make the expropriation of the lands of churches possible,” said the statement by Theophilos III, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Francesco Patton, the Custos of the Holy Land, and Nourhan Manougian, the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem."

Would it? The article is too light on detail to draw any conclusion on that. It's either missed out this possibility, or those guys are crying wolf. Which is it?

"Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat said on Twitter it was illogical to expect that church-owned commercial property, including hotels and retail businesses, would continue to enjoy tax-exempt status."

Businesses pay taxes. Stop whinging and cough up. As long as Jewish and Muslim commercial property pays taxes, then that's fair. But do they? Not clear.

Here's more info...

After Holy Sepulchre locked, bill allowing seizure of former church land shelved

Azaria says her bill seeks to protect hundreds of Israelis, largely in Jerusalem, whose homes are located on land that, until recently, was owned and leased to them by the churches, principally the Greek Orthodox Church — in most cases under 99-year contracts signed in the 1950s between the church and the state, via the Jewish National Fund.

The contracts state that when the leases run out, any buildings on them will revert back to the church. Residents expected that the leases would be extended. But in recent years, in order to erase massive debts, the Greek Orthodox Church has sold vast swaths of real estate to private investors, and nobody knows whether they will renew the leases, and if so, under what conditions.

Kulanu MK Rachel Azaria takes part in Knesset Finance Committee meeting on November 6, 2017. (Miriam Alster/Flash90)
Indicating that the main role of the bill is to get the new landowners to the negotiating table, Azaria said, “I hope that the buyers will come around and that we will succeed in arriving at a solution through negotiation and agreement. If that doesn’t happen, the law will transfer the rights to the land to the State of Israel.”

So the churches were selling land they had leased to Israeli citizens. The Israeli assume the lease would be renewed by the church. The new private owners may choose not to and develop the land instead. Threatening all of the Israeli depending on the lease being renewed. Business or residents I suppose.

How this affects the church is they may not be able to sell the land to private owners knowing the government has a reserve right to expropriate it if they don't renew the lease to Israeli citizens.

Also taxing church organizations which some folks in the US have been wanting for a long time.

 

[Quiddity]

How this affects the church is they may not be able to sell the land to private owners knowing the government has a reserve right to expropriate it if they don't renew the lease to Israeli citizens.

Also taxing church organizations which some folks in the US have been wanting for a long time.

It's unclear to me what the terms of the expropriation are.

It may say that the Church has to follow certain conditions......but that doesn't mean that the new owners have to.

 

[Nakosis]

It's unclear to me what the terms of the expropriation are.

It may say that the Church has to follow certain conditions......but that doesn't mean that the new owners have to.

It means the government of Israel has a right to purchase the land if it so chooses at a cost it deems appropriate.

Sounds as though as long as the private owners continue to extend the lease to the current leasees they will be left alone.

If they refuse to extend the lease, perhaps they want to build condos or something, the government would have a right to prevent any development by purchasing the land probably at market cost.

 

[Quiddity]

It means the government of Israel has a right to purchase the land if it so chooses at a cost it deems appropriate.

Sounds as though as long as the private owners continue to extend the lease to the current leasees they will be left alone.

If they refuse to extend the lease, perhaps they want to build condos or something, the government would have a right to prevent any development by purchasing the land probably at market cost.

I know that much.

Expropriation sounded unique in this case. Unless of course they take land from anyone in Israel? Otherwise, this really would be business as usual.

 

[james dixon]

non related but still related news

An Irish bill on Israeli settlement goods could make history

Ireland may be on its way to make the purchase of goods and services from Israeli settlements illegal.

On July 11, the upper house of the Irish parliament, the Seanad, will vote on a landmark bill that, if passed, would ban the purchase of goods and services from illegal Israeli settlements. The "Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018" was put forward by Irish independent Senator Frances Black and co-signed by Senators Alice-Mary Higgins, Lynn Ruane, Colette Kelleher, John G Dolan, Grace O'Sullivan and David Norrison on January 24 this year.

https://tinyurl.com/y7pnpmdx