This position paper was prepared by Mounir Kleibo, on behalf of the family and concerned rights holders, and shared with Jerusalem Story. It is published here verbatim with only light stylistic editing.

Jerusalem, July 2026

The signing of a 99-year, one-dollar lease agreement allocating the Allenby Compound in Jerusalem for the permanent site of the United States embassy is not, for us, merely a diplomatic or political development. It directly concerns land that was once privately owned Palestinian property, registered during the British Mandate, and owned by known Jerusalem families, including the family of my late grandfather, Hassan Ali Kleibo.

The issue is not the symbolic value of one dollar. The issue is the political, legal, and human meaning of what has taken place: land that was purchased, paid for, registered, confiscated after 1948, and now leased to a foreign state as if its original owners had never existed [see Israel and US Agree to Build US Embassy on Confiscated Palestinian Land: Jerusalemite Landowners Respond].

We stress that this is not only a family matter. It is part of a broader pattern affecting Palestinian private property in West Jerusalem after 1948 [see The West Side Story]. It raises fundamental questions about private ownership, historical documentation, the legal and political status of Jerusalem, and the responsibility of Palestinian institutions to defend documented property rights.

The land in question lies in what later became known as the Allenby Compound in West Jerusalem. According to the family records and documents available to us, the land covers approximately eight feddans and was privately owned by Palestinian Jerusalem families.

Our family preserves original British Mandate-era land registration documents proving our family’s connection to this property and my late grandfather Hassan Ali Kleibo’s ownership interest in it. These are not merely oral memories or family stories; they are official land records issued under the land registration system in force at the time [see The Complex and Unresolved Status of Land in East Jerusalem].

The land was never ownerless. It carries names, families, legal documents, and a history. Its owners paid for it, registered it through the proper legal channels, and preserved their documents across generations. After 1948, they were deprived of it through Israeli domestic legislation, particularly the Absentees’ Property Law [see How Israel Applies the Absentees’ Property Law to Confiscate Palestinian Property in Jerusalem].

After 1948, this land, like many Palestinian properties in West Jerusalem, came under Israeli control through domestic legal mechanisms [see Land and The West Side Story]. In our view, however, domestic legislation does not erase the historical record, the original ownership, or the broader legal question of private property in a city whose final status remains internationally disputed.

On July 1, 2026, Israel and the United States signed an agreement allocating the Allenby Compound as the permanent site of the US embassy in Jerusalem. The Israeli foreign ministry described the agreement as part of implementing the Israeli government’s decision to allocate the Allenby Compound for the permanent US embassy, linking it to President Donald Trump’s 2017 decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocating the embassy.

Media reports also stated that the lease is for 99 years for the symbolic sum of one dollar, a figure attributed to US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee.1

For us, this image is painful not only because of the one-dollar symbolism, but because it shows how land with owners, documents, and history can be transformed into an administrative item in a political agreement.

This case has not been only an individual or family effort. Adalah—The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel has carried the case legally and professionally. Adalah states that in January 2023, it filed an objection with Israeli planning authorities on behalf of 12 descendants of the original Palestinian landowners, including US citizens, Jordanian citizens, and Palestinian residents of Jerusalem.2 The objection was rejected, and the plans were later approved and confirmed by Israeli planning authorities.

Earlier media reporting also noted that lease agreements and maps indicated Palestinian ownership of land designated for the new US embassy, according to Adalah.3

Any official Palestinian action should therefore build on Adalah’s existing legal work, documentation, powers of attorney, and accumulated expertise. The file does not need to start from zero.

This is not merely a real estate dispute. It concerns Palestinian private property confiscated after 1948 and now incorporated into a permanent US diplomatic project in Jerusalem.

The issue has been raised by legal and research bodies for years. Jerusalem Story reported that Palestinians, including US citizens, submitted documents proving ownership of one of the West Jerusalem sites proposed for the US embassy, and that the site was part of Palestinian land seized by Israel after its establishment [see Palestinians Campaign against Proposed US Embassy Site on Stolen West Jerusalem Land].

Research published by the Institute for Palestine Studies concluded that at least 70 percent of the embassy site was refugee private property, and that more than one-third was Islamic waqf property.4

Allocating or constructing a foreign embassy on documented Palestinian private property raises serious legal and political questions, particularly in Jerusalem, whose final status remains unresolved under international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.

We are not raising this issue in search of personal sympathy. Nor do we wish to reduce it to one family’s story. We speak because we have documents, memory, and a historical right, and because silence by rights holders allows power alone to define the narrative.

We affirm the following:

1. The land was not ownerless; it was documented Palestinian private property.
2. Our family, along with other Jerusalem families, preserves original British Mandate-era ownership documents.
3. Leasing the land to the United States does not erase the historical right, the documents, or the memory.
4. This case is larger than the Kleibo family; it is a national file concerning Palestinian private property in West Jerusalem.
5. The continuation of the project despite the presentation of documents and legal objections requires serious institutional Palestinian action.

I am not seeking personal sympathy. I am calling for institutional adoption of the case. When individual property rights are connected to a city such as Jerusalem, they become part of the national right, and Palestinian institutions have a duty to give them the legal and diplomatic attention they deserve.

We call upon the Palestine Liberation Organization, as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and the State of Palestine, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, to formally and seriously adopt this file.

Specifically, we call for:

• The formation of a joint legal and diplomatic team including Adalah, representatives of the owning families, the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and international law experts
• A formal approach to the US government regarding the legal background and private ownership history of the site
• A professional legal assessment of possible avenues inside the United States, particularly given that some rights holders are US citizens
• Inclusion of the case within the broader Jerusalem file in international forums
• Comprehensive documentation of Palestinian private properties in West Jerusalem
• The creation of a national archive of documents, maps, and testimonies concerning these properties
• Ensuring that individual rights holders are not left alone to face a case that exceeds their individual capacity and touches the core of the national question.

This is not only the story of “my grandfather’s land,” although the personal dimension is deep and painful. It is the story of Jerusalem when the property of its people is transformed into new political facts without adequate recognition of their history, documents, or rights.

Our case is not against a people, a religion, or diplomacy between states. It is against the logic of erasing ownership and memory. We ask for recognition of the truth, respect for the documents, and a refusal to build political arrangements on private rights that have not been resolved legally or morally.

Land may be confiscated. Buildings may be constructed. Agreements may be signed. But documents remain. Memory remains. History does not begin at the moment of signature; it begins when land was owned, registered, and paid for.

Mounir Kleibo
Jerusalem
July 2026