Whose is the Alexander Courtyard in Jerusalem after all? And will Netanyahu be able to “uphold the interests of the State of Israel” in this case?

“Wait, doesn’t all the land in Israel belong to the state? How then is it transferred to someone?”

This is the most common and absolutely logical question.
And the short answer to it is — no, not all the land in Israel belongs to the state.

…

Let’s say right away, in Israel, a petition/open appeal by Israeli citizens to the government is gaining momentum, demanding “to stop the transfer of the Alexander Courtyard to Russia and related IPPO structures“, because they believe that such a transfer “threatens Israel’s security” and poses “risks associated with external influence and the political interests of Moscow and related organizations”.

“Protect Israel from the Russian threat: stop the transfer of the Alexander Courtyard to Hamas supporters“
“Protect Israel from the Russian threat: stop the transfer of the Alexander Courtyard to Hamas supporters”

here it is (Hebrew) – https://www.atzuma.co.il/threatfromrussia

…

Let’s return to land ownership.

Where did this myth come from

In Israel, indeed:

• most of the land is under state management;
• there is the Israel Land Authority;
• land is often not sold, but leased long-term.

Because of this, there is a feeling that

“everything state-owned means the state decides everything.”

But this is not quite so.

What actually belongs to the state and what does not

In Israel, there are three different types of land:

1. State land
   Yes — belongs to the state.
   This is simple.
2. Private land of citizens and organizations
   Yes — it exists.
   With documents, registers, and property rights.
3. Historical and foreign private property
   This is where the whole story with courtyards, churches, and old objects begins.

Many such plots:

• were purchased even before 1948,
• during the Ottoman Empire, British Mandate,
• by private societies, churches, foundations.

And Israel did not automatically nullify these rights.

Why didn’t Israel say: “Everything is ours, period”

When Israel was being re-established, it consciously did not go down the path of confiscating all private property.

The reasons are simple and harsh:

• it wanted to be a state of law, not a revolutionary regime;
• it inherited the British legal system, not destroyed it;
• mass confiscation would mean:
  • endless courts,
  • international isolation,
  • destruction of its own legitimacy.

Simply put:

Israel could have taken it — but decided not to become one who takes by force.

Then what does “transfer” mean in such disputes

When it is said that an object is “transferred”, it does not mean that:

• Israel is giving away “its land”,
• or making a gift to someone.

In fact, Israel:

• is not the owner of such objects,
• acts as an arbiter,
• decides whom to recognize as the legal owner between disputing parties.

Can Israel take it for itself?

Theoretically — yes:

• if the object is recognized as ownerless,
• if no party proves the right,
• or for exceptional reasons of public interest.

“Public interest” — these are rare cases when the state can intervene in private property for the sake of security, vital infrastructure, or protection of unique heritage, for example, for road, railway, or metro construction, creating a security zone, or preserving a historical object.

But this is a extreme scenario, which Israel almost does not resort to, because it:

• creates a dangerous precedent,
• hits international reputation,
• undermines the very logic of a state of law.

The shortest explanation

Land under the sovereignty of Israel — yes.
But ownership — not always state-owned.
Therefore, Israel does not “give away its own”, but decides, whose it is by law (Israeli and international).

Let’s start.

What is the Alexander Courtyard today — in fact

The Alexander Courtyard, here it is on Google map, is a historical-archaeological, cult, and museum complex in the Old City of Jerusalem, located approximately 40–50 meters from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (1–2 minutes walk). It is not a hotel or commercial lodging: accommodation for tourists or pilgrims is not provided.

Area and location.
The complex occupies a plot of about 1,300–1,500 m², which is a significant size for the dense development of the Old City. Nearby are key shrines and locations:

• Church of the Holy Sepulchre — 40–50 m;
• route Via Dolorosa — directly adjacent (the Judgment Gate Threshold is part of it);
• district Muristan — about 100 m;
• Jaffa Gate — approximately 250–300 m.

What exactly is on the territory of the courtyard:

• House Church of St. Alexander Nevsky — a small Orthodox church of the late 19th century; services are held periodically, there is no permanent monastic community.
• Judgment Gate Threshold — an authentic archaeological object of the Roman era (1st century AD), a fragment of an ancient pavement and threshold; according to Christian tradition, associated with the path of Jesus Christ to the trial of Pontius Pilate and included in the Via Dolorosa route.
• Archaeological site — elements of ancient city walls and buildings of Jerusalem, discovered during 19th-century excavations and preserved.
• Small museum and exhibition rooms, dedicated to the history of the complex and findings.
• Inner courtyard and historical buildings, forming a closed architectural ensemble within the Old City.

What is happening there now:

• the courtyard is open to visitors as a cultural-historical object;
• tours and archaeological site inspections are conducted;
• there is a museum exhibition;
• the cult function of the church is maintained;
• work is being done on the maintenance, protection, and conservation of monuments.

What is fundamentally absent there:

• there is no hotel or hostel;
• there is no commercial tourist service;
• there is no diplomatic or state institution.

Who manages the object:

Management and daily activities are carried out by the Orthodox Palestine Society (OPS) — a non-governmental public association operating in Jerusalem within the Israeli legal framework. Administrators, guides, and caretakers work on-site; restorers and monument protection specialists are involved as needed. The State of Israel does not directly manage the courtyard but oversees it within the framework of heritage protection and security legislation.

It is the combination of significant area, archaeological value, and extreme proximity to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre that makes the Alexander Courtyard an object of special attention and explains why the dispute around it goes far beyond a usual property issue.

Let’s continue.

In November 2025, a new round of hearings on the transfer of the Alexander Courtyard took place in the Jerusalem District Court — from the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPPO) — to whom — Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPPO).

No, this is not a typo.

Why “IPPO ≠ IPPO”, if OPS was in between

(in the international-legal sense, considering the role of OPS)

In practice, it is about not two, but three different entities, which creates the main confusion. Two of them bear the same name — the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, and the third — Orthodox Palestine Society (OPS) — occupied an intermediate position during the legal gap period.

Imperial IPPO (1882–1917)

The pre-revolutionary “Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society” (IPPO) was a private public association, founded in 1882 and operating within the legal framework of the Russian Empire.

Principally important legal clarification:
the imperial IPPO did not belong to the state of the Russian Empire and was not the property of the royal family or the House of Romanov.

• the society was not a state body;
• was not part of the structure of ministries or departments;
• its property was not state property;
• it was not in the personal property of the emperor or members of the dynasty.

Imperial patronage was expressed exclusively in:

• approval of the charter,
• moral and political support,

but not in ownership rights.

All land plots and buildings in “Palestine”, including the Jerusalem courtyards, belonged to the society itself as an independent legal entity, not to the state and not to the royal family.

The term “Palestine” is used here exclusively in a historical-legal sense, as it appeared in Ottoman, European, and mandate documents of the late 19th — early 20th century, and has no relation to modern political realities or issues of Israeli sovereignty. For clarity, this name will be used strictly in the form and meaning in which it is recorded in official acts of the corresponding period.

After 1917, the Russian Empire and the imperial legal order ceased to exist. As a result, the imperial IPPO lost its legal personality and ceased to exist as a legal entity. There was no formal act of liquidation, but in the international-legal sense, the society ceased to exist.

Important for the IPPO case

Already in 1918, Soviet Russia, and then the USSR, officially renounced succession in relation to the Russian Empire, which was recorded by the decree of the Council of People’s Commissars on the annulment of state debts and the rupture of imperial legal and contractual obligations. This renunciation meant not only the non-recognition of imperial state debts but also the absence of succession for private imperial societies, including the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. Accordingly, the property of the IPPO abroad was not considered inherited by the USSR and was not under the protection or management of the Soviet state, which cemented the international-legal gap in the fate of the society and its property.

OPS as a period of factual continuation

In the legal vacuum that arose after 1917, the activities and management of the property of the former IPPO in the Holy Land effectively passed to the Orthodox Palestine Society (OPS)— a Jerusalem Orthodox organization formed in the emigrant community from the Russian Empire in the 1920s. People, local structure, archives, and actual management of the courtyards moved to OPS.

Orthodox Palestine Society (OPS) — is a non-governmental public association operating in Jerusalem and associated with the historical tradition of the pre-revolutionary Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, but legally independent and not representing any state. It operates within the Israeli legal framework and manages historical objects, including the Alexander Courtyard. In this article, OPS is mentioned only as one of the parties to the property dispute, without delving into its history.

At the same time, OPS was not and was not recognized as the legal successor of the imperial IPPO. It did not receive the property by an act of inheritance or transfer and acted in the international-legal logic as a factual holder and custodian, not as a legal owner.

Russian IPPO (since the 1990s)

The modern Russian “Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society” (IPPO) was created in the 1990s and registered under Russian Federation law. In a legal sense, this is a new legal entity, not identical to the pre-revolutionary society.

The Russian IPPO declares itself the successor of the imperial IPPO, relying on historical continuity, mission, traditions, and the restoration of the name. However, from the point of view of international and Israeli law, the coincidence of the name and appeal to historical identity does not create automatic succession.

International-legal conclusion

In international-legal logic, automatic succession is possible only if there is continuity of the same legal entity or an internationally recognized act of transfer of rights. In the case of the IPPO, such conditions did not exist. An additional factor cementing the gap is the existence of OPS as an independent factual holder of property in the period between 1917 and the 1990s.

Final formula

The Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society was a private public association and did not belong to either the state of the Russian Empire or the royal family; its property was not state property. In the international-legal sense, the modern Russian IPPO is not an automatic successor of the pre-revolutionary IPPO, as there is no continuity of the legal entity and there was no internationally recognized act of transfer of rights.

What is the legal collision

In December 2019, Israeli media reported on the registration of the Alexander Courtyard for Russia in the Israeli real estate register. It was this entry that created the impression that the object had already been transferred. However, the registration was carried out administratively, without completing legal proceedings and without resolving objections from the Orthodox Palestine Society (OPS).

OPS, led by Nikolai Vorontsov-Hofman, filed a protest, after which the Jerusalem District Court imposed a temporary ban on the transfer of the object to the Russian IPPO, effectively freezing the situation.

Administrative decision of 2020

In 2020, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed an administrative document categorizing the Alexander Courtyard as a “place of Christian worship”.

This decision was not an act of property transfer and did not replace legal proceedings, but it placed the object in a special legal regime, where questions of its status could be considered at the government level, not exclusively within the framework of ordinary civil litigation. Thus, the executive branch received an additional tool for resolving the dispute outside the classic judicial path.

Current legal status

The Jerusalem District Court ruled to maintain the status quo until a political-administrative decision is made.

According to the court’s decision, the courtyard temporarily remains under the management of the OPS (Orthodox Palestine Society) — that is, the structure that carries out the actual ownership and management of the object at the moment — until a special interdepartmental commission of the Israeli government makes a final decision on the ownership issue.

The court did not recognize any of the parties as the final owner, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction in this situation.

Positions of the parties

• The Russian side claims that Israel should fulfill previous political commitments and complete the transfer process in favor of the Russian IPPO, which is considered by it as a historical successor.
• OPS (Orthodox Palestine Society) insists that the courtyard is its historical property, which Russia or Russian structures never directly owned, and disputes the very idea of transfer.
• The Israeli government takes an intermediate position, trying to balance between external political pressure, internal legal risks, and international criticism, avoiding a unilateral decision without the conclusion of a specialized commission.

What’s next

The court directly indicated that the final decision is within the competence of the governmental interdepartmental commission, not the court and not the prime minister individually.

Until such a decision is made, the situation remains legally suspended. At the same time, continued pressure from the Russian side is expected, especially given the current geopolitical context, while the Israeli government continues to postpone the final decision, striving to minimize legal and political consequences.

By the way –

there is material about the modern Russian IPPO from the Israeli publication “Details”

“The Alexander Courtyard is wanted to be transferred to a structure, accusing Israel of the “October 7 massacre” and promoting more than 170 exhibitions about the “genocide of Palestinians”

And here is the video Sergey Auslender – Nikita Aronov on this issue:

Ancient Hebrew period (10th century BC — 70 AD)

Land was regulated by the norms of ancient Hebrew law (din Torah), as well as city and royal administration. The plot was outside the sacred zone of the Temple Mount, so the temple property regime (קדשי המקדש) did not apply to it. Ownership was secular and could be private, communal, or administrative within the framework of ancient Hebrew property law.

Specific owners are not known by name, as cadastral fixation of property in the modern sense did not exist. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the liquidation of the city structure, the former ancient Hebrew property titles effectively lost legal force.

Roman period (70 AD — 4th century AD)

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the territory came under the direct control of the Roman Empire and was regulated by the norms of Roman law (ius Romanum). Land was considered either state property (ager publicus) or private property (dominium privatum), transferred to Roman citizens or municipal structures of the city.

Specific owners of the plot are not recorded in surviving sources. Property rights of the previous population were terminated as a result of war and deportations, and subsequent ownership was determined by decisions of the Roman administration and city management (municipium).

Byzantine and early Christian period (326–637 AD)

In 326–335 AD, at the initiative of Empress Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine the Great, and by direct order of the imperial authority, the territory in the area of the future Church of the Holy Sepulchre was withdrawn from the usual city circulation. This decision was part of the state policy of Christianizing Jerusalem after the legalization of Christianity. Land, previously part of secular urban development, was transferred to the status of sacred property (res sacrae) according to the norms of Byzantine and Roman imperial law (ius Romanum, ius Byzantinum).

The legal holder of rights to the plot became the Jerusalem Church (ecclesia Hierosolymitana), that is, the local Christian institution under the management of the Bishop of Jerusalem, operating under imperial patronage (imperial patronage). The transfer was not formalized by a purchase-sale agreement, as the mechanism of imperial withdrawal and sacralization of land, characteristic of the 4th century, was applied. Private individuals were not owners, and the alienation of the plot was taken out of the civil circulation.

The formation of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the adjacent territory secured a stable Christian status for this area, which was maintained throughout the Byzantine period. Documentary confirmation of this is provided by contemporaneous sources of the 4th century, primarily the testimonies of Eusebius of Caesarea (Vita Constantini), as well as subsequent Byzantine church management practices. By the time of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem in 637 AD, the plot was recognized as church property, under institutional, not private ownership.

Early Islamic period (from 637 AD — 10th century)

After the capture of Jerusalem in 637 AD by the troops of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, the city came under the rule of the Rashidun, and then the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates. Upon the change of sovereignty, Christian shrines and church possessions were not confiscated. The rights of the Jerusalem Church to the plot in the area of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre were preserved within the framework of Islamic law.

The legal basis was the granting of Christians the status of dhimmi (ahl al-dhimma), which guaranteed the protection of the person, cult, and property upon payment of a poll tax (jizya). Church property was recognized as legal and inviolable, and the land continued to be owned by the Christian institution as a religious collective. The caliphate did not convert such plots into waqf and did not include them in the state land fund (bayt al-mal).

Thus, in the early Islamic period, there was no redistribution of property, but a confirmation of the previously established Byzantine church title. By the 10th century, the plot remained part of the Christian confessional zone around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, with continuous institutional ownership and without a break in legal status.

Medieval period: Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mamluks (11th–15th centuries)

In 1099, Jerusalem was captured by the Crusaders, and the city came under the control of the Latin Kingdom. Christian property in the area of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was redistributed within the Christian world: management and ownership of plots passed to Latin church institutions under canon law (ius canonicum). At the same time, the category of church sacred property was preserved, and the land was not turned into secular private property.

After the return of Jerusalem under the control of the Ayyubids in 1187 and the subsequent establishment of Mamluk control, there was a rollback of Latin dominance. Muslim authorities restored the principle of protecting Christian shrines and property within Islamic law. Church plots around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre were preserved for Eastern Christian communities, including Greeks and Copts, as recognized religious corporations. Property was considered collective confessional ownership and was not included in the state land fund.

By the end of the Mamluk period, the plot on which the Alexander Courtyard later arose was part of a stable Christian property mass in the Old City. The legal status was determined not by a specific purchase-sale agreement, but by continuous recognition of religious property with the change of political regimes.

Ottoman period (1517 — mid-19th century)

After the conquest of Jerusalem by the Ottoman Empire in 1517, the city was included in the Ottoman administrative-legal system. Christian communities were recognized by the state as religious corporations within the millet system, which gave them the right to collective ownership of real estate and independent management of internal affairs. The property of Christian denominations, including land plots in the area of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, was regulated by the norms of Ottoman law, combining sharia and imperial legislation (kanun).

At the early stage of Ottoman rule, the rights of religious communities were primarily fixed in fiscal-land registers (defter). These documents reflected the recognition of a specific community’s ownership of a plot and its responsibility to the state, but did not represent an individual title deed in the modern sense. It was about state confirmation of existing confessional ownership, not the creation of new property rights.

With the development of the Ottoman land system and the implementation of reforms in the 18th–19th centuries, religious possessions in Jerusalem were more formally registered in the tapu land certificate system. It was the tapu senedi that became the first type of document that can be considered a full-fledged title deed, recognized by the state and allowing for the alienation of property.

Within this registration, part of the Christian plots around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was secured for the Coptic Orthodox community of Jerusalem as an independent legal entity.

It is important to emphasize that the Ottoman authorities did not “transfer” the land to the Copts. Their right was based on continuous confessional ownership, which the state recognized and formalized through registration. The Ottoman administration considered the Coptic community as a legitimate owner, capable of disposing of real estate, including its sale, subject to the established procedure and obtaining permission from the authorities.

By the mid-19th century, the Coptic community had a formalized and state-recognized title of ownership, confirmed by tapu documents. It was the emergence of this formalized Ottoman title deed that became the first case of documentary securing of property rights to the plot in a legal sense and created the legal possibility of its lawful sale to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in 1859–1860.

Purchase of the plot by the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission (1859–1860)

In 1859–1860, the land plot in the area of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, previously registered for the Coptic Orthodox community of Jerusalem, was alienated in favor of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. The transaction was formalized as a private purchase-sale between two religious corporations and was carried out within the framework of the existing Ottoman law. The seller was the Coptic church institution, possessing a formalized title of ownership, confirmed by the tapu system, and the buyer was the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, acting through its head, Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin).

The legal basis of the transaction was a purchase-sale agreement concluded under the norms of sharia and kanun with the mandatory administrative permission of the Ottoman authorities for the alienation of real estate to a foreign religious entity. Such a procedure was standard for Jerusalem in the mid-19th century and applied to all foreign Christian missions. The Ottoman administration considered the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission not as a state body of the Russian Empire, but as a church institution, which excluded the qualification of the transaction as interstate.

The financing of the purchase was carried out at the expense of donations and church funds, but the source of the money did not affect the legal status of the property. In Ottoman documents and registers, the owner of the plot was recorded as the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, not the Russian Empire, not the imperial family, and not the treasury. No acts transferring the plot to the state property of Russia were formalized.

The conclusion of the transaction in 1859–1860 created a new initial title of ownership, recognized by the Ottoman state and valid in subsequent periods. From this moment, the plot was in the private church ownership of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, which became the legal basis for the subsequent construction and formation of the Alexander Courtyard, but did not generate any rights for the Russian Empire as a state.

Development of the plot and formation of the Alexander Courtyard (1860s — 1890s)

After the completion of the purchase-sale in 1859–1860, the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem began the development of the plot as the legal owner under Ottoman law. The use of the land was carried out based on the formalized tapu title and was not accompanied by any acts of alienation or change in the legal status of ownership. The Ottoman authorities considered construction and archaeological work as permissible disposal of private church property (mulk).

In the 1860s–1870s, the plot was cleared and adapted for religious and pilgrimage purposes. In the 1880s–1890s, an architectural complex was formed here, which received the name Alexander Courtyard. This name had a memorial character and did not reflect the form of ownership or state affiliation of the object. The right of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission to the plot continued to be preserved without changes and did not require re-registration.

Transfer of management of the Alexander Courtyard to the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (late 19th century)

By the end of the 19th century, the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem decided to transfer the economic and pilgrimage management of the Alexander Courtyard to the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. The basis for this was the statutory goals of the IPPO, aimed at organizing pilgrimages, maintaining Russian institutions in Palestine, and exploiting religious real estate. The transfer was carried out in the form of an internal order between affiliated church-public structures and was not formalized as a civil-law transaction of alienation.

From a legal point of view, it was about delegating management and use functions (administratio), not about transferring ownership rights (dominium). The Russian Ecclesiastical Mission retained the title of owner, based on the Ottoman tapu, while the IPPO acted as the managing organization, carrying out actual possession, maintenance, and exploitation of the object. No purchase-sale, donation, or other title deed in favor of the IPPO was formalized, and the change of owner was not registered in either Ottoman or subsequent registers.

The transfer of management did not require separate permission from the Ottoman authorities, as it did not affect the title of ownership and was considered an internal order of the owner within his powers. In legal terms, the IPPO acted as a lawful possessor (lawful possessor), having gained access to the object based on the owner’s consent.

It was this status that later became key for assessing the continuity of possession after 1917, but it did not itself turn the IPPO into an owner at this stage.

1917–1922: cessation of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, renunciation of succession, and creation of a legal vacuum

After the revolutionary events of 1917, the pre-revolutionary church-state order of the Russian Empire was destroyed. The Holy Synod, through which the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem operated, was abolished, centralized management and financing of the mission ceased, and the Soviet government refused to recognize pre-revolutionary church institutions as holders of property rights abroad. As a result, the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission lost its legal personality and ability to act as an active owner of real estate.

The cessation of the mission’s activities was not accompanied by an act of liquidation, confiscation, or transfer of property. The Alexander Courtyard was not transferred to either the state or another church structure. In 1918–1922, Soviet Russia officially renounced succession for foreign private and church property of the Russian Empire, which excluded the emergence of a title for the RSFSR or the USSR. Thus, the title of ownership, formalized in the 19th century for the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, was “orphaned”: it was not annulled but lost its active holder.

The Moscow Patriarchate, restored in new conditions, did not become the successor of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in a property sense. It arose as a new church structure within the Soviet legal framework and did not receive automatic international recognition as the heir to pre-revolutionary foreign assets. Neither the Soviet state nor foreign authorities formalized acts of succession linking the patriarchate with the mission’s rights to real estate in Jerusalem.

In these conditions, the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, which even before 1917 carried out lawful management and use of the Alexander Courtyard based on the owner’s consent, continued actual possession of the object. This possession was qualified as lawful and continuous (lawful possession), as the IPPO did not enter arbitrarily, did not displace another owner, and acted within the framework of previously obtained powers. The absence of a successor for the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission and the refusal of the USSR to make claims created a legal vacuum in which the IPPO remained the only subject exercising possession, forming the basis for subsequent recognition of the title based on the principle of continuity of possession (continuity of possession).

British Mandate period (1917–1948): administrative practice and recognition of the IPPO

During the British Mandate in Palestine (1917–1948), the new authorities adopted the principle of preserving existing property rights and titles formed before the change of sovereignty. Regarding the Alexander Courtyard, the British administration did not carry out expropriation, sequestration, or nationalization and did not declare the object ownerless (bona vacantia). The absence of an active owner, which arose after the cessation of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, was not filled by transferring the property to the mandate state.

The practice of management and administrative interaction was built directly with the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. All official correspondence, permits, and orders for the operation and maintenance of the courtyard were addressed to the IPPO as the responsible owner and manager. British authorities did not require the IPPO to present an act of transfer of ownership and did not initiate re-registration of the title, which meant tacit recognition of the established possession through the administrative behavior of the authority (recognition by conduct).

Legally, this period became key for consolidating the status of the IPPO. Continuous and lawful possession (lawful possession) in the absence of a competing owner and in the absence of state actions to expropriate the property led to the crystallization of the title. The British Mandate did not create new property rights but confirmed the existing situation based on continuity of possession (continuity of possession), which was later accepted by subsequent sovereign authorities.

Jordanian period (1948–1967): preservation of the status quo of ownership and applicable law

After 1948, East Jerusalem came under Jordanian control, which applied the principle of preserving the existing property order (status quo), used in international practice during the change of sovereignty. The applicable law included the norms of Ottoman land law (Ottoman Land Code 1858), which continued to operate in East Jerusalem, as well as the provisions of mandate law, inherited from the British administration. These sources were considered as a continuing legal order and did not require automatic re-registration of ownership.

Regarding the Alexander Courtyard, Jordanian authorities did not carry out confiscation, sequestration, or recognition of the property as ownerless (bona vacantia). The absence of such actions meant the preservation of the previous title. Administrative interaction was carried out with the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society as the factual owner and manager, without requiring an act of transfer of ownership. In these conditions, the principle of lawful and continuous possession (lawful possession, continuity of possession) was applied, where the right is not created anew but preserved in the absence of competing claims.

Former Russian state property in West Jerusalem after 1948

After the declaration of independence of the State of Israel in 1948 and the establishment of its control over the western part of Jerusalem, Israel came under its jurisdiction a number of objects that previously belonged to the Russian Empire as a state. The issue of their fate was not resolved automatically but under active external political pressure from the Soviet Union.

The USSR became one of the first states to recognize Israel and used this recognition as a tool of political pressure. Soviet diplomacy directly insisted on the transfer of former imperial state real estate to the USSR as the successor of the Russian Empire. For the young Israeli state, which was in international isolation and dependent on external support, this factor was decisive.

As a result, in 1949–1951, Israel recognized the USSR’s rights to objects that before 1917 were state property of the Russian Empire and were located within western Jerusalem. Such objects included the complex of the Russian Compound (Migraash ha-Rusim), buildings of the former Russian hospital, as well as administrative and representative buildings, constructed and registered to the state treasury. These objects did not belong to church property and were not owned by public or religious organizations.

Legal formalization was carried out by administrative decisions of the Israeli government and subsequent registration in property bodies. The basis was Israel’s recognition of the USSR as the state successor of the Russian Empire exclusively in terms of state property, as well as diplomatic agreements between the parties. A separate special law was not adopted; the legal effect was achieved through a combination of executive acts and international obligations.

This mechanism did not extend to objects that before 1917 belonged to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, monasteries, or public structures, as they were not state property and did not fall under the principle of state succession.

“Orange Deal”. Redemption by the State of Israel of former Soviet real estate in West Jerusalem (1964)

In 1964, the State of Israel redeemed from the Soviet Union a significant part of the real estate in West Jerusalem, previously recognized for the USSR as state property of the Russian Empire. The deal was formalized within the framework of an interstate agreement and received the unofficial name “orange deal”.

The subject of the redemption was exclusively objects that had the status of state (treasury) property before 1917 and were located on territory under Israeli control. These included the main buildings of the Russian Compound (Migraash ha-Rusim), administrative and economic buildings, as well as buildings of the former Russian hospital and accompanying infrastructure. After the completion of the deal, the USSR’s ownership of these objects was terminated, and they passed into the full ownership of the State of Israel.

The decision to redeem was due to several reasons. The formal ownership of the USSR of large objects in the center of Jerusalem was considered by Israel as a problem of sovereignty and internal security. Legally, Israel could not nationalize foreign state property without serious international consequences, so redemption was chosen as a legal way of final settlement. In addition, the USSR was interested in converting unused foreign real estate into economic compensation, and Israel — in gaining full control over the territory for the placement of state, judicial, and municipal institutions.

The 1964 deal did not extend to objects located in East Jerusalem, did not concern church and public property, and was not related to objects that before 1917 belonged to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, monasteries, or the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society. The Alexander Courtyard was not included in this process.

1967: extension of the Israeli land registration system and fixation of IPPO ownership

After the Six-Day War of 1967 and the establishment of Israeli control over East Jerusalem, Israel extended its civil and property law to this territory. For the first time for the Old City, a unified national system of real estate registration was applied — the Israeli land registry Tabu (Lishkat rishum mekarkein).

Before this, other forms of land accounting existed in Jerusalem: Ottoman tapu records, as well as mandate and Jordanian practices of preserving these records. However, none of them represented a modern state cadastre with mandatory fixation of the current owner. The Israeli Tabu, unlike previous systems, fixes property rights as a legal fact recognized by the state.

When including objects of East Jerusalem in Tabu, Israel did not carry out nationalization, did not create new titles, and did not change owners. The principle of preserving previously existing property rights (status quo / continuity of title) was applied: if an object had a legal owner and was not alienated, its right was preserved and subject to fixation in the register.

The Alexander Courtyard was entered into the Israeli real estate register (Tabu) with the indication of Orthodox Palestine Society (OPS) as the owner of the plot. The basis was Ottoman purchase-sale documents, the lawful entry of the pre-revolutionary Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society into possession, continuous actual management of the object by the local structure after 1917, and the absence of any act of alienation in favor of the state(?). The object was not registered for the State of Israel and was not considered state property.

Thus, after 1967, the property rights to the Alexander Courtyard were first formally fixed in a modern state register precisely for OPS. It was not about the emergence of a new right, but about the state fixation of an already existing historical title, which in Israeli law is a full confirmation of private property.

1967–1990: absence of disputes and the beginning of Russian claims

From the moment of the inclusion of East Jerusalem in the legal field of the State of Israel in 1967 until the early 1990s, the issue of the ownership of the Alexander Courtyard was not raised or disputed.

During this period, the Soviet Union did not make property claims to the Alexander Courtyard, which corresponded to its previously declared renunciation of succession for foreign private and church property of the Russian Empire.

1991–1996: first practical steps of Russia

In 1991–1992, after the collapse of the USSR, Russian diplomatic missions in Israel began raising the issue of the status of certain objects of so-called “Russian real estate”, including the Alexander Courtyard, within the framework of working contacts with Israeli departments. These actions were informal and consultative in nature and were not accompanied by the filing of lawsuits, official statements of ownership rights, or attempts to change the entry in the real estate register.

In 1993–1996, the Russian side sent administrative requests to Israeli bodies asking to clarify the legal status of the object and the possibility of its re-registration. In response, Israeli registering bodies pointed to the presence of a valid entry in Tabu, as well as the absence of title documents necessary for changing the register. Formal procedures for reviewing the entry were not initiated.

During this period, no legal proceedings were conducted, no transfer decisions were made, and no changes in the real estate register occurred. All actions were limited to correspondence and consultations at the interdepartmental level.

Late 1990s — early 2000s: transition to formalized demands

In the late 1990s — early 2000s, the Russian Federation moved from consultations to formalized appeals to Israeli bodies demanding a review of the status of the Alexander Courtyard.

During this period, the Russian side began officially declaring that the object is “Russian property” and insisting on its re-registration in the state registers of Israel.

Israeli registering bodies refused to change the entry in Tabu, citing:

• the absence of proper title documents;
• the absence of a continuous and recognized chain of title;
• the presence of a valid registration for another entity.

No legal decisions were made during this period, and the entry in the real estate register remained unchanged.

2019–2022: administrative decisions and their review

In 2019, an administrative process related to changing the status of the Alexander Courtyard was initiated in Israel. The consideration of the issue took place not in a judicial order, but at the level of executive power and registration bodies.

In December 2019, within this process, an attempt was made to administratively formalize the rights of the Russian Federation to the object. These actions were of a political-administrative nature and took place against the backdrop of negotiations between Israel and Russia on the case of Israeli citizen Naama Issachar, convicted in the Russian Federation.

It is important to emphasize that it was not about judicial recognition of ownership rights. Registration actions were carried out administratively, without considering the issue of a continuous chain of title and without canceling the previously existing entry in the real estate register, which created a legal collision.

In 2020, a separate administrative decision was simultaneously made to categorize the Alexander Courtyard as a “place of Christian worship”, which transferred the object to a special legal regime, but was not an act of property transfer and did not replace legal proceedings.

In 2022, Israeli bodies canceled the administrative decisions of 2019–2020 related to changing the status of the object. The cancellation was carried out administratively, based on the results of an internal review of the legality of registration actions, without issuing a court decision on the merits of the ownership dispute.

During the review, it was established that the changes in the status of the Alexander Courtyard were made:

• without proper legal basis;
• without a court decision;
• without confirmation of a continuous and recognized chain of title.

After the cancellation of administrative decisions, the entry in the real estate register was returned to the state that existed before 2019.

2022 — present: status quo and awaiting decision

Currently, the legal status of the Alexander Courtyard remains uncertain. The object continues to be in a status quo mode until a final decision is made by the authorized bodies of the State of Israel. The process is not complete: further steps depend on the conclusions of the governmental interdepartmental commission and possible new legal actions.

Ultimately, the key decision remains with the government of Israel, not the court. The courts only fixed the status quo and directly indicated that the final answer should be developed by the interdepartmental commission and then approved by the executive branch. Thus, the issue goes far beyond a private property dispute and becomes a test of the ability of the Government of Israel to withstand external pressure without destroying the internal logic of a state of law.

Whether Benjamin Netanyahu will ultimately be able to protect the interests of the State of Israel — standing firm against the persistent demands of Putin — or whether the country will confirm its commitment to historical-legal facts, law, and democratic procedures, will be an indicator of which principle will be decisive: “political expediency” or “rule of law”.

This choice and its consequences continue to be closely monitored by NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency.

Public reaction: petition on risks to Israel’s security

Amid the ongoing dispute over the Alexander Courtyard, a public initiative emerged in Israel in the form of a petition posted on the Atzuma platform under the name Threat from Russia. The authors of the appeal urge the Israeli government to stop any forms of transferring the Alexander Courtyard to structures associated with the Russian Federation, considering such a step as a potential risk to national security.

“להגן על ישראל מהאיום הרוסי: לעצור את העברת חצר אלכסנדר לתומכי חמאס”
“Protect Israel from the Russian threat: stop the transfer of the Alexander Courtyard to Hamas supporters”

here it is (Hebrew) – https://www.atzuma.co.il/threatfromrussia

The text of the petition emphasizes that it is not just about a property or historical dispute. According to the initiators, the possible transfer of the object could lead to “institutional consolidation of Russian presence in a sensitive area of Jerusalem”, which is seen as a factor of political and symbolic influence, going beyond religious use.

A separate emphasis is placed on the risk of using religious and public structures as a “tool of external influence”, including promoting “political narratives and informal contacts that do not coincide with Israel’s interests”. The authors of the petition point out that similar “influence mechanisms” have already been used by Russia in other countries under the guise of cultural and religious institutions.

The appeal also emphasizes the geopolitical context: “active interaction of Russia with states and structures hostile to Israel, including Iran and related forces”. In this light, the transfer of the object in Jerusalem is perceived as a “potential channel of external pressure”, not as a neutral legal act.

Finally, the authors consider dangerous the very “precedent of a political decision bypassing a full legal procedure”, as it, in their opinion, “undermines trust in state institutions and creates vulnerability for future external pressure on Israeli decisions”.

At the same time, the petition is not a legal document and has no binding force. It reflects the position of part of Israeli society and serves as a form of public pressure on the executive branch, complementing the legal and political context around the Alexander Courtyard.