Israel’s demolition of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s headquarters in East Jerusalem has prompted a chorus of condemnations: charges of lawlessness, warnings of a dangerous precedent and claims of violated international norms. The criticism is forceful — but incomplete. It leans on legal abstractions detached from institutional reality, and on an assumption that UNRWA remains entitled to deference after it squandered the trust that makes privileges sustainable.
At the center is UNRWA, created in 1949 as a temporary humanitarian body and transformed into a permanent political institution. Unlike every other refugee population overseen by the U.N., Palestinians are administered by a separate agency that confers refugee status hereditarily and indefinitely. That anomaly has long insulated UNRWA from accountability while entrenching a narrative rather than solving a humanitarian problem.
Critics cite the U.N. Convention on Privileges and Immunities, which declares U.N. premises “inviolable.” But immunities are not unconditional. They exist to protect legitimate international functions — not to provide perpetual sanctuary to facilities no longer used for those functions or credibly implicated in activity inconsistent with them. Israel’s claim is that immunity cannot be a forever shield for a vacated compound on land the state says it owns.
By the time demolition began, UNRWA had already ceased operations at the site. Israel points to legislation — passed after sustained public debate — banning UNRWA activity and enabling the state to reclaim compounds. Critics may reject Israel’s sovereignty claim over East Jerusalem, but international law does not require a state to treat unused property as untouchable simply because it once flew a U.N. flag.
The deeper issue is institutional credibility. After Oct. 7, evidence emerged of UNRWA employees’ involvement with Hamas and of agency facilities being used for military purposes in Gaza — facts acknowledged even by some donor governments. At that point, Israel’s dispute with UNRWA ceased to be theoretical. It became operational.
Yet much of the international response treats UNRWA as indistinguishable from the United Nations itself, collapsing a specific conflict into a broader indictment of Israel’s respect for international law. That framing is convenient but misleading. States are entitled — indeed obligated — to reassess relationships with international bodies that fail standards of neutrality and accountability. Doing so is not “defiance.” It is governance.
Celebratory rhetoric from Israeli officials, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, is diplomatically unhelpful and politically counterproductive. It makes caricature easier: ideological theater instead of a contested policy decision. But rhetoric does not erase the underlying case.
Condemnations from the U.N. and Secretary-General Antonio Guterres likewise assume what must be demonstrated: that UNRWA still possesses the moral and legal standing it claims. That assumption is increasingly contested — not only by Israel, but by donors who have frozen or reconsidered funding.
None of this resolves the larger questions surrounding East Jerusalem or Palestinian political aspirations. But reflexive outrage is no substitute for institutional reckoning. If international law is to command respect, it must be applied in good faith — and good faith requires confronting uncomfortable facts about UNRWA itself.
Israel’s action may be controversial and costly. But portraying it as a simple assault on the international order misses the point. This was not a rejection of law; it was a challenge to an exception that had gone unexamined for far too long.
