Legal Proceedings

Alongside the promotion of legislation, we are also working to protect our rights through the courts. We have initiated a first legal proceeding concerning land that the Jewish National Fund (KKL) leased from the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. We are also examining additional proceedings regarding other lands.

The Supreme Court petition concerning the land leased by the Jewish National Fund (KKL) from the church in Jerusalem

In 2025, the Headquarters initiated the filing of a petition to the High Court of Justice concerning 570 dunams in the neighbourhoods of Talbiya, Nayot, and Rehavia, which the Jewish National Fund (KKL) leased from the Greek Orthodox Church. In the petition, the petitioners requested that the Court order the Jewish National Fund (KKL) and the Israel Land Authority to exercise their contractual rights and extend the lease period of the lands on which their homes and public institutions were built.

The negotiations: the intention was a sale, but a lease was agreed upon for political reasons

An official protocol of the Jewish National Fund from 1951 describes that the negotiations that were conducted concerned the sale of the land to the Jewish National Fund, but the Patriarch feared that a formal sale of church land to Jews would provoke opposition. Therefore, an alternative solution was agreed upon, namely the leasing of the land.

The matter is described as follows in the protocol of the Jewish National Fund discussion:

“For some time, negotiations have been conducted with the Greek Orthodox Church regarding the purchase of certain areas of land in the city by the Jewish National Fund, amounting to 165 dunams. At the head of the church stands a synod of eighteen members, and above them all stands the Patriarch. Fourteen of them agreed to the sale of the areas and four opposed. At first, the Patriarch also did not agree; he was afraid to give his approval to the sale of church land to Jews. The Greek government sent a special representative from Athens to examine the financial situation of the church. As a result of this examination, the representative reached the conclusion that, in order to remedy the situation, it was necessary to sell some of the church lands. After this, he visited the Patriarch during his stay in Jerusalem and spoke with him on the matter. Representatives of the church paid a visit to Abdullah, this was a few months before his assassination, and he advised them to sell [...] The leadership of the Jewish National Fund approached the government in order to examine the possibility of expropriating these lands. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs opposed the expropriation, and its reasoning was as follows: it is possible that at the upcoming United Nations assembly the question of the internationalization of Jerusalem will be raised again, and care must be taken not to provoke the Greek church and the other churches. A few weeks ago, representatives of the Greek church came to him and stated that, now as before, they are afraid to sell the land; however, the leaders of the church agree to lease the land [...]”

Following this consent, three lease agreements were signed in the early 1950s between the Jewish National Fund and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.

The lease agreements: full control over the land in the hands of the Jewish National Fund

Although formally these were lease agreements, they granted the Jewish National Fund very broad rights in the land, including the right to build, develop, demolish structures, and subdivide the land at its discretion. In substance, this was not an ordinary lease, but rather a transfer of ownership in practice to the Jewish National Fund.

The three lease agreements were described as follows in the response of the Jewish National Fund to the petition:

“The three agreements preserved the formal status of the Patriarch as the registered owner of the lands, but alongside this granted the Jewish National Fund the right to act with respect to them as a full owner, as long as it continues to hold the lease rights as stated, without the need for the consent of the church or coordination with it.

In addition, each of the agreements defined a lease period of 99 years as a ‘first lease period’, but granted the Jewish National Fund the right to continue the lease for additional lease periods, at its sole discretion.”

In another legal proceeding, the Jewish National Fund described the arrangement as follows:

“The framework that was ultimately agreed upon was that the lands would be transferred in practice to the Jewish National Fund, which would be entitled to act with respect to them as a full owner, while the registered ownership would remain with the church. The method for achieving this was to transfer lease rights alone to the Jewish National Fund, on the one hand, and to empty the ownership right that remained with the church of substantive content, on the other hand. In this way, the church retained formal ownership, which it was ostensibly prevented from transferring, but without leaving it with de facto rights in the lands, except for a primarily economic right to receive annual lease payments.”

The expected lease extension fees are supposed to be nominal

An examination of real estate transactions from that period indicates that the consideration paid by the Jewish National Fund for the lands was significantly higher than the ownership price of comparable lands in those years, which supports the conclusion that there is no basis to demand lease payments exceeding a nominal amount.

In addition, this fact, together with the historical background of the agreements which clarifies the intention of the parties, as well as the fact that the church retained primarily a formal ownership right and the right to update lease payments, which currently stand at approximately 34 thousand dollars per year, indicates that the price of extending the lease is expected to be nominal.

Thus, the Jewish National Fund also wrote in an opinion regarding the expected price:

“It is found that the ownership rights reflect a negligible percentage of the total value of the real estate, including the planning potential. The portion attributed to the ownership component in these transactions is consistent with the analysis presented above and shows that the amount of the annual lease payments that are to be paid to the owner under these unique agreements should not reflect a percentage of the land value or be derived from its value, but should amount to a nominal sum that provides the owner with a certain annual income for the formal ownership right that remains in its hands.”

This position of the Jewish National Fund is also supported by an agreement in principle reached between the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and the Jewish National Fund in 2006, according to which lease payments until the year 2200 would amount to 4.5 million dollars, and is also supported by the price at which the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate ultimately sold its right to receive lease payments from the Jewish National Fund in respect of the said lands for the period 2011 to 2161, which amounted to approximately 10 million dollars.

Following the signing of the lease agreements, development and construction of the lands began, and more than 1,000 housing units, numerous public institutions, and cultural buildings were built on them.

Despite the historical background of the agreements and the fact that the Jewish National Fund has a contractual right to extend the lease, this right has not been exercised to date.

Why we were compelled to initiate a petition to the High Court of Justice

The lease period of the above mentioned lands is expected to expire in approximately 25 years. For years, the Headquarters, as well as individual leaseholders, have approached the Jewish National Fund demanding that it exercise its contractual right and extend the lease. As long as the Jewish National Fund does not exercise its right, the uncertainty regarding the future of the lands remains. This uncertainty is already causing a significant decline in the value of leaseholders’ properties. It also hinders the development and renewal of the buildings that were constructed. Who will invest in renovating and building their home if in 25 years they will be required to give it up.

Status of the petition

Together with the petition, a request for an interim order was submitted to prevent any change in the state of rights under the lease agreements. In response, the Jewish National Fund and Extel requested that the petition be dismissed at the outset.

The Supreme Court did not accept the request to dismiss the petition at the outset, and it is expected to be heard on August 3, 2026.

With regard to the interim order, in light of the response of the Jewish National Fund and Extel, the Court determined that if understandings are formulated between the Jewish National Fund and Extel regarding rights relating to leaseholders, the Jewish National Fund will share them with the leaseholders and allow them to express their position regarding the understandings that are reached.

Join the Petition

The petition has been filed by more than 200 leaseholders. We again request that those who have not yet signed join and sign a power of attorney for the petition. The greater the number of signatories, the stronger the message to the High Court of Justice and to the Jewish National Fund that this is a substantial issue affecting all of us and that it has broad support among leaseholders.

To join just click the link here to download the Power of Attorney. Fill in your details and email the final document to  the email address of the Headquarters: 4home.we.struggle@gmail.com.

The full text of the petition (excluding appendices) is provided below: