How can @UNRWA claim that its facilities in Jerusalem cannot be closed down? ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Thursday, February 20, 2025

How can @UNRWA claim that its facilities in Jerusalem cannot be closed down?

Last May, Israel sent a letter to UNRWA demanding that they evacuate from their buildings in Jerusalem that were built on state land or land belonging to the Jewish National Fund before 1948.

UNRWA's response to these charges are interesting in that they do not deny them. Instead, they attempt to deflect them.

From the (anti-Israel) Jerusalem Story site:

Israel claims UNRWA’s headquarters is located on state land. In fact, the property was leased to UNRWA by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1952, when East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. According to Fowler, UNRWA pays a symbolic annual rental fee of 2,500 Jordanian dinars (approximately $3,525) to Jordan, which is deposited into an escrow account.

“We remained in exclusive possession of the compound without interruption until 1967, and then continuously after 1967, since Israel occupied the territory. And we have not had any challenges to our possession of the compound from the Israeli foreign ministry,” Fowler said, noting Israel’s foreign affairs ministry is the interlocutor between UNRWA and the State of Israel.

UNRWA also operates a vocational school in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Kufr ‘Aqab called the Qalandiya Training Center.

“We were granted exclusive rights to use the land by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1951, with the specific goal of providing technical training for Palestine refugees,” Fowler said. “And exactly the same as with [the headquarters] we’ve had exclusive possession since then that’s not been interrupted after 1967.”

We know that the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property took control of Jewish-owned property and leased them to Arabs or to UNRWA, but it claims that "with few exceptions, [Jordan] held that property in virtual trust and did not try to alter its title or ownership. "

If it became Jordanian state land, then it became Israeli state land in 1967. If the lands were considered still owned by Jews, then the land is still owned by Jews today and they have the right to evict UNRWA.

Either way, UNRWA's arguments do not seem to have any legal basis. Paying rent to Jordan which has no legal claims on the land would not seem to give UNRWA the right to stay there forever. And even if Israel didn't previously challenge the ownership of the lands it does not affect their legal status.

One other argument seems to be a bit stronger:

Ardi Imseis, former legal counsel and public policy advisor to UNRWA and currently a member of the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University, argues that international law always trumps domestic law. In fact, the occupier’s domestic law is not relevant.

“The privileges and immunities of the United Nations are very clear: The property and assets of the United Nations are immune from all forms of interference—no matter who holds the property,” Imseis told Jerusalem Story, citing the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN of 1946, to which Israel is a party.

The Convention does indeed seem to say that UN facilities cannot be evacuated against their will. But in this case, where UNRWA pays Jordan a token amount for the lease, it doesn't make sense since Jordan renounced all responsibility for the territories in 1988. UNRWA, by paying Jordan, is pretending that Jordan is the owner even when Jordan no longer makes that claim (except in certain religious sites in Jerusalem.)

Certainly UNRWA doesn't recognize Israel's sovereignty over the parts of Jerusalem over the Green Line. But this is hypocritical as well - it clearly recognized Jordan's annexation of east Jerusalem as legally valid to the point of paying Jordan to lease lands in Jerusalem, but it doesn't recognize Israel's own annexation of the same land.

At the very least UNRWA should be trying to pay Israel, which took over the functions of the Jordanian Custodian of Enemy Property. But if Israel would accept payment it might then be agreeing that UNRWA has a legal right to the land, meaning that under the convention Israel would not be able to retake it.

The only remaining question is whether Jordan's original lease of these lands to UNRWA was legal to begin with. If it wasn't, it seems strange to say that the UN can freely operate on stolen lands forever. It sort of contradicts the UN charter.

The UN Convention mentioned earlier obviously didn't envision a situation like that. But it sure appears to be be the case that UN is operating on land it never had the legal right to use.