Talk:Church of Saint Anne, Jerusalem

As a French Territory
I took out this whole paragraph. Nothing was sourced and it made claims that were unsupported. I welcome discussion here. WiiWillieWiki 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Though I agree a source for the claim is desirable, I also think that the fact of the claim being repeatedly made by French presidents is worthy of mention, with appropriate caveat, such as it being “claimed”. Enthusiast01 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I totally get you. I guess I took issue with the original paragraph I took out, where it said like "Israeli police must leave if any French official requests it." Your current version looks great! WiiWillieWiki 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * So from reading up for an hour: Apparently the church has the status of a French national domain (see French wiki: "Domaine national") along with three other territories (map) in Jerusalem (again another French article).


 * According to historian Howard Sachar writing in Israel and Europe, those…


 * traditionally enjoyed the extraterritorial status of a consulate


 * … which fits pretty much their description in the Consulate General of France in Jerusalem wiki article.


 * The trouble however would be (despite recent news articles vaguely referencing "international treaties" like in a game of Chinese Whispers, without ever specifying just which) that this status seems never to have actually been formally agreed upon between France and Israel.


 * There's some argument (and it's certainly the French position) that Israel conceded the same status as the Ottomans had via the 1949 Chauvel-Fischer letters (otherwise unknown to the point of not having a single Wiki mention), but in fact those were never actually ratified by Israel precisely because of that reason, and so the issue remains in a cat state.


 * For some more intricacies this already has caused in past situations (like the 1963 "Of Pigs and Men" affair), see eg. Uri Bialer's discussion in his book Cross on the Star of David (he refers to it as "Fischer-Chauvel agreement"). — 95.90.219.68 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I created a new article called Fischer-Chauvel Agreement.Enthusiast01 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Who is challenging French rights and on what base?
How is it a French "claim"? That implies a controversy, of which I know nothing. The Sultan gave it to Napoleon III. What is allegedly being contested, Saladin's takeover in 1187, the Ottomans being heirs to the Ayyubid-Mamluk succession, the Sultan's right to give it to France, the French Republic's right of inheriting property of the 2nd Empire, who exactly on the French side is the owner...? Most certainly not a claim by the State of Israel, who can hardly claim property rights in the Old City. Not by international law for sure, and probably very tricky even under Israeli law. So what's the implied controversy here? The Benedictines could certainly rise claims, but after 800 years it would be an uphill battle, and they're unlikely to try and throw out the White Fathers. So, who's making up a misleading and inexistent issue here? Arminden (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)