Palestinian Land Claims to Allenby Barracks


In response to questions concerning the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, U.S. Embassy spokesperson Larry Schwartz stated that, "there are no plans to go forward at this time". Schwartz noted, however, that once a final resolution is found, the U.S. government would build on land in Jerusalem allocated to it by Israel. As the current land allocated to the U.S. on the former Allenby Barracks is Palestinian refugee property, Schwartz re-iterated that all outstanding property claims of that nature should also be resolved in the final status. The transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was mandated by a 1995 Congressional bill (see al-majdal, issue no. 2).

The property currently designated for the U.S. Embassy was confiscated by the Israeli government says Hasib Nashashibi, whose family owned property in that area. According to Palestinian Conciliation Committee maps and Hasib's own family documents, the property of the Allenby Barracks was divided among family waqf, public waqf and the Egyptian Coptic Church. In the war of 1948 the land was depopulated and transferred to the Israeli Custodian of Absentees' Property.

According to Nashashibi, the northern portion of land, 56 dunums, is owned by the Khalidi, Nashashibi, Abu Saud, Saiidi, and Burjuan families all of whom entrusted their property to the Waqf. As late as 1952 the High Commissioner of the British Mandate gave Akram Khalidi 53 Palestinian Pounds as payment for the rent owed for use of this property in 1951. This was the last payment. The southern portion of land, which is now divided by a road that leads to the Israeli area of Armon HaNatziv, is a combination of family waqf and privately owned property of the Dijani's and several other families. Thirty-three dunums are still owned by the British Government. A document received by Nashashibi from the British Council states that the land has never been sold.

Although the conclusion of final status talks was set for September of 2000, Palestinian claims for their property and the right to return will continue long after the dates set in the recent Sharm al-Sheikh agreement. As recently expressed in the international response to the forced population transfers of East Timor and Kosova, the right to property and the right of return has been repeatedly consecrated in international law and practice. Despite the confidence of the U.S. Congress to concur with the Israeli allocation of property, the U.S. will have to be wary of where it chooses to make its bed.