On 1 July, the United States and Israel signed a 99-year lease agreement granting the United States a parcel of land in Jerusalem for one U.S. dollar per year to establish the permanent premises of the U.S. Embassy. The designated site is located within the former Allenby Barracks compound, on land that was privately owned by Palestinian families before 1948.
Historical records submitted to the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), alongside British Mandate archives, Israeli land registry records, and documents from the Israeli Ministry of Justice, confirm that the land belonged to Palestinian owners before it was seized by Israeli authorities under the Absentees’ Property Law of 1950. Historical research further indicates that at least 70% of the site consists of privately owned land belonging to Palestinian refugees, while additional sections constitute Islamic waqf (endowment) property. Dozens of Palestinian heirs, some holding U.S. and Canadian citizenship, continue to assert legal claims to the property. Among the descendants of the original owners is Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi, who has publicly opposed the construction of the embassy on his family’s land for decades.
In 2023, “Adalah” Center submitted a legal objection on behalf of several heirs of the original Palestinian owners, challenging the allocation of the land for the embassy project. However, the Israeli planning authorities rejected the objection, classified the land as state property, and thereby cleared the way for the current lease agreement.
This development constitutes a continuation of the United States’ 2017 decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and its subsequent relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem in 2018. The establishment of a permanent diplomatic compound on land confiscated from Palestinian refugees further entrenches the legal and political consequences of measures that alter the status of occupied Jerusalem and reinforce policies affecting Palestinian property rights.
Legal framework & Analysis
The allocation of confiscated Palestinian land for the establishment of the permanent premises of the U.S. Embassy violates fundamental legal rules under the rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, particularly in light of the legal status of East Jerusalem as part of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). The United Nations (UN) has repeatedly affirmed that East Jerusalem is occupied territory since 1967 and that all legislative and administrative measures aimed at altering the character of the city, its legal status, or demographic composition are null and void and without legal effect, in accordance with numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969), 298 (1971), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), and 2334 (2016).
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) further affirmed in its advisory opinion issued on 19 July 2024 concerning the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, that Israel’s continued occupation, annexation policies, and settlement practices are unlawful. The Court emphasized that all states are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from these policies, not to render aid or assistance in maintaining or sustaining such a situation, and to cooperate to bring it to an end. In this context, allocating confiscated Palestinian land for the permanent premises of a foreign embassy, and concluding a 99-year lease agreement, raises serious questions regarding the compatibility of such a measure with the international obligation not to recognize or contribute to the consolidation of unlawful situations resulting from occupation and annexation.
Furthermore, as a third State, the United States is bound by the obligation of non-recognition under customary international law and by the legal consequences arising from the peremptory norms of international law. The ICJ has repeatedly affirmed that third States must not recognize as lawful situations created through serious breaches of international law, nor contribute to the preservation or institutionalization of consequences arising from occupation-related confiscation and annexation policies; third States have a duty to ensure that their conduct does not reinforce such unlawful agreements.
Accordingly, third States are required not only to refrain from actions that may imply recognition of an unlawful situation, but also to actively avoid measures that would consolidate or legitimize such situations, and by entering into agreements that entrench claims of sovereignty or control over unlawfully appropriated Palestinian property, the United States contributes to the consolidation of an illegal situation that all States are obligated not to recognize or assist in maintaining it.
Furthermore, Article 46 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 prohibits the confiscation of private property in occupied territories and explicitly provides that “private property must be respected and cannot be confiscated.” Article 55 of the same Regulations further establishes that an occupying power acts only as an administrator and usufructuary of public property and does not acquire sovereign rights enabling it to dispose of land, alter its character, or allocate it for permanent purposes. In addition, Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits the destruction or seizure of private property except where such destruction is rendered necessary by military operations, an exception that does not apply to the establishment of diplomatic missions or permanent civilian projects.
This case carries additional legal significance given that a substantial portion of the land belongs to Palestinian refugees whose properties were confiscated pursuant to Israel’s 1950 Absentees’ Property Law, a legislation that was used to transfer ownership of thousands of Palestinian properties to the Israeli state. The continued disposition and use of these properties contradict the internationally recognized rights of Palestinian refugees to restitution of their property and compensation, as reflected in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III), as well as the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property.
Moreover, parts of the land constitute Islamic waqf (endowment) property, raising additional legal concerns regarding the protection of religious and cultural property in occupied territory. The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, particularly Article 4, requires occupying authorities to respect property of religious and cultural significance and to refrain from using, disposing of, or taking measures that may damage such property or alter its legal status.
The transfer and allocation of waqf lands for permanent purposes also contradicts the principle of preserving the Status Quo governing religious properties and endowments in Jerusalem, a principle recognized through international practice and diplomatic arrangements as a framework prohibiting unilateral measures that affect the administration, character, or legal status of religious sites and properties. Accordingly, incorporating portions of Islamic waqf land into the project for establishing the permanent U.S. Embassy premises does not merely affect Palestinian property rights; it also constitutes interference with the legal protections afforded to religious endowments and cultural property in occupied Jerusalem, contributing to the consolidation of unilateral changes to the historical and legal status of the city.
Furthermore, allocating the land for the establishment of a permanent foreign embassy constitutes a unilateral measure that directly affects the legal status of Jerusalem, contrary to the international framework recognizing that the status of the city is among the final status issues that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties, rather than through unilateral actions designed to create permanent facts on the ground