Israel’s parliamentary elections have produced a political deadlock whose consequences extend far beyond the formation of the next government. While negotiations in Jerusalem focus on parliamentary majorities and the political future of Benjamin Netanyahu, a less visible question concerns the balance of religious and institutional authority in one of the world’s most contested cities.
For the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the outcome of the October 27 elections coincides with a period of growing tensions over ecclesiastical property, municipal taxation, and access to Christian holy sites. These disputes have increasingly brought the Patriarchate into contact with Israeli political institutions, municipal authorities, and international diplomatic actors.
At the center of these developments stands the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, whose historical religious arrangements remain closely connected to the wider question of Jerusalem’s political and institutional status.
The elections have altered the parliamentary balance without resolving the political divisions that shape Israeli policy towards East Jerusalem. Their significance for the Christian institutions of the Holy Land will therefore emerge through the composition of the next governing coalition, the distribution of ministerial authority, and the political agreements necessary to secure a majority.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The Coalition Arithmetic and the Question of Jerusalem
The final electoral results have left Netanyahu’s political bloc with 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with 48 for the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot. The two Arab-led political formations, the Joint List and Ra’am, secured a combined 19 seats, gaining an unprecedented degree of parliamentary relevance.
The figures create a potentially decisive role for Arab political representation. A combination of Eisenkot’s opposition bloc and the Arab parties would command 67 seats, although such an arrangement faces substantial political obstacles.
Avigdor Liberman has rejected cooperation with Arab parties, while Naftali Bennett and Eisenkot have also expressed reservations about such partnerships. At the same time, Netanyahu’s existing political allies remain short of the parliamentary majority required to form a government.
The emerging situation creates several possible negotiating frameworks, ranging from an alternative government dependent on Arab parliamentary support to a broader political arrangement involving parties from opposing blocs. Continued deadlock also remains possible.
For Jerusalem, these negotiations carry implications beyond conventional coalition politics. The political forces represented in the next government will influence Israeli policies concerning territorial administration, settlement activity, policing, and the relationship between the state and religious institutions.
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate is directly affected by decisions in these areas because its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, historic properties, and religious responsibilities extend across territories administered under different legal and political arrangements.
Bennett’s political background, Eisenkot’s security-oriented approach, and Liberman’s nationalist secularism reflect important differences, particularly on territorial questions and relations with Arab political representatives.
The parliamentary change is therefore significant without necessarily indicating an imminent transformation of Israeli policy towards the city’s Christian institutions.
Church Property and the Politics of Territorial Control
The relationship between ecclesiastical property and political authority has become increasingly important in understanding the position of the Orthodox Patriarchate.
In June 2026, the Patriarchate accused Israeli authorities of unlawfully taking control of Church-owned land in Silwan, an area of East Jerusalem situated near the historic Monastery of Saint Onuphrius. According to the Patriarchate, municipal personnel entered the property, removed equipment, uprooted trees, and installed fencing, restricting access to land registered under its ownership.
The Jerusalem Municipality disputed the Patriarchate’s ownership claims in subsequent legal proceedings, arguing that the land was neglected and should be treated as state property. The legal dispute illustrates the competing interpretations of property rights and administrative authority in East Jerusalem. The incident attracted international attention. The World Council of Churches publicly condemned the operation and called for respect for the Patriarchate’s legal rights.
For the Orthodox leadership, the importance of the dispute extends beyond the boundaries of a particular property. Church lands form part of Jerusalem’s historical religious geography and support the continuity of Christian institutions within the city. The issue also connects with the long-running controversy surrounding properties near Jaffa Gate, where transactions involving companies associated with the Jewish nationalist organization Ateret Cohanim produced years of legal proceedings.
The position of parties supporting an expanded Jewish presence in East Jerusalem is consequently relevant to the broader political environment surrounding ecclesiastical property.
However, there is no established basis for assuming that every party advocating stronger Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem has adopted a specific program directed against the Orthodox Patriarchate.
The decisive distinction concerns the difference between ideological positions on Jerusalem and identifiable government measures affecting particular Church properties.
The Holy Sepulchre between religious autonomy and state authority
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre occupies a distinctive position within Jerusalem’s religious and diplomatic structure. Its internal arrangements are governed by the historic status quo, which regulates the rights and responsibilities of the Christian communities sharing the shrine, principally the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Roman Catholic Churches.
This ecclesiastical arrangement is distinct from the political and security regulations governing access to Jerusalem’s holy places. Nevertheless, the two frequently intersect. In March 2026, Israeli police prevented Latin Patriarch Cardinal Pizzaballa and the Custos of the Holy Land from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to celebrate a private Palm Sunday Mass.
Israeli authorities cited security restrictions imposed during the conflict with Iran, including the danger of missile strikes and the difficulties of protecting worshippers in the narrow streets of the Old City.
Church representatives questioned the proportionality of the measure, prompting international diplomatic reactions. Israeli authorities subsequently reached arrangements permitting limited religious ceremonies.
Although the incident directly involved Catholic leaders, its wider institutional significance concerned the relationship between state security powers and the religious rights of the historic churches.
The episode illustrated how decisions taken within Israel’s security establishment affect Christian religious institutions whose responsibilities and international relationships precede the modern Israeli state.
The future administration of the Ministry of National Security and the policy framework governing police operations in Jerusalem will therefore remain relevant to the Christian Churches. At the same time, security decisions cannot be assessed independently of the circumstances in which they are taken. Jerusalem’s exposure to regional military threats gives the Israeli authorities substantial responsibilities for protecting lives and maintaining public order.
The central institutional question concerns how those responsibilities are exercised alongside the protection of established religious rights.
Municipal taxation as a diplomatic issue
A further source of tension concerns the municipal taxation of Church properties.
In June 2026, the Israeli investigative organization Shomrim reported negotiations between Israeli authorities and the Greek Orthodox, Catholic, and Armenian Churches regarding municipal property taxes. The dispute concerns the extent to which historic exemptions should apply to properties used for commercial or income-generating purposes.
Municipal authorities have argued that such activities should be subject to taxation. The churches have defended their historic legal and financial arrangements, warning against measures that could undermine their institutional independence and their ability to maintain religious and social activities.
The controversy has a political history.
In February 2018, the leaders of Jerusalem’s principal churches temporarily closed the Holy Sepulchre in protest against proposed property legislation and municipal tax measures.
The crisis was defused after Netanyahu intervened, and the disputed initiatives were suspended pending negotiations.
Eight years later, the persistence of similar disagreements demonstrates the limitations of temporary political arrangements when fundamental questions of property taxation and ecclesiastical status remain unresolved.
The next Israeli government will inherit these disputes regardless of its composition.
Their management will provide a practical indication of how the authorities intend to balance municipal revenue requirements with the historic position of Jerusalem’s Christian institutions.
Jordan’s custodianship and the regional dimension
The Orthodox Patriarchate’s international significance cannot be understood solely through its relationship with Israel.
Jordan maintains a recognized special role concerning Jerusalem’s Muslim holy shrines under the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty, while its wider Hashemite custodianship claims also encompass Christian holy places.
The agreement signed by King Abdullah II and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in March 2013 explicitly referred to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem and its relationship with Jordanian legislation.
The distinction between the different legal instruments is important. The 2013 agreement was concluded between Jordan and the Palestinian leadership, whereas the 1994 treaty established the framework for Israel’s recognition of Jordan’s special role concerning Muslim holy shrines.
The Patriarchate thus operates within a complex institutional environment in which historical religious authority, territorial administration, and diplomatic recognition do not necessarily coincide.
This creates a direct regional dimension to disputes concerning Christian properties and sacred sites.
Jordan’s relationship with Jerusalem forms an important component of its domestic legitimacy and foreign policy. Developments affecting the city’s Christian institutions therefore hold significance within the broader framework of Israeli-Jordanian relations.
A future Israeli government seeking to manage relations with Amman will encounter these questions alongside the more frequently discussed disputes concerning Islamic holy sites.
The Patriarchate’s position also intersects with the interests of Greece and the wider Orthodox world.
Athens maintains close historical and diplomatic relations with the Patriarchate, while Israel remains an important partner for Greece in defense, energy, and regional security.
This combination creates opportunities for diplomatic engagement, although it also requires careful separation between bilateral strategic cooperation and disagreements concerning the treatment of religious institutions.
The future of Jerusalem’s Christian presence
The outcome of Israel’s elections has created a moment of institutional uncertainty rather than a predetermined change in the status of Jerusalem’s Christian holy places.
The political negotiations will determine which parties exercise authority over ministries and administrative structures whose decisions affect the Orthodox Patriarchate and the wider Christian community.
The growing parliamentary weight of Arab political parties introduces another dimension, particularly in relation to the rights and representation of Arab Christian communities.
Yet the political interests of Palestinian Christians, the ecclesiastical authority of the Greek Orthodox hierarchy, and the diplomatic priorities of regional governments are not identical. Their interaction reflects the complex position of an institution that must preserve its religious responsibilities while operating across competing political jurisdictions.
For the Patriarchate, maintaining the continuity of the Christian presence involves property rights, religious access, institutional recognition, and the everyday conditions of the communities it serves.
The next government will inherit a series of unresolved disputes whose consequences extend into Israel’s relations with Jordan, Greece, and international Christian institutions.
Much will depend on whether coalition negotiations produce a framework capable of addressing these issues through stable administrative and legal arrangements.
Jerusalem’s Christian Status Quo has survived successive political transformations because its preservation has remained an issue of wider religious and diplomatic concern.
