Israel Demolishes UNRWA Headquarters in Jerusalem: The Geopolitical Game Behind a Legal Action
20/01/2026
The roar of bulldozers shattered the morning tranquility in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem. In early 2025, after the Israeli Knesset passed a law prohibiting the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) within its territory, the Israel Land Authority, in coordination with law enforcement agencies, began systematically demolishing the UNRWA headquarters building located in the city's Ammunition Hill neighborhood. Heavy construction machinery reduced office buildings and training facilities to rubble, followed by the raising of an Israeli flag over the ruins. These scenes quickly spread across the globe through social media, documenting not only a physical demolition but also symbolizing a long-brewing political and legal showdown that has drawn widespread attention. Israel claims this is an enforcement of domestic law and a necessary cleanup of an agency that has long become a breeding ground for terrorism. In contrast, an UNRWA spokesperson expressed grief and indignation, calling it an unprecedented act, stating that no country in the world has ever taken down the United Nations flag from its offices as Israel has done. From Sheikh Jarrah to the training college in Qalandia, UNRWA's presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is being uprooted. This is far from a simple real estate recovery; behind it lies the thorough implementation of Israel's national security logic, a challenge to the international aid architecture, and yet another unilateral shaping of the final status of Jerusalem.
From Legal Texts to Bulldozers: The Decision-Making and Implementation Chain of Demolition Operations
The demolition action was not a spur-of-the-moment decision. Its direct legal basis is a bill passed by the Israeli Parliament in January 2025, which explicitly prohibits UNRWA from operating within Israel. The bill's sponsor, Yulia Malinovsky, a member of the "Israel Our Home" party, personally appeared at the demolition site. Her statement clearly outlines the intent of the Israeli legislature: "UNRWA's terrorist headquarters on Ammunition Hill was removed this morning... thanks to the law I initiated to expel UNRWA from Israel." Defining the UNRWA headquarters directly as a terrorist headquarters reflects the complete denial of the nature of this agency within the official Israeli narrative.
The statement from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs attempts to cloak the action in a rigorous legal and administrative framework. It emphasizes that the ownership of the plot belongs to the State of Israel and that the action was carried out by the Israel Land Authority in accordance with the law. More crucially, the Ministry points out that even before the passage of this law, UNRWA had already ceased operations at the site, with personnel and activities fully withdrawn. This formulation aims to strip the action of its immediate conflictual nature, portraying it as a routine disposal procedure for an idle asset without immunity. The statement repeatedly stresses that this does not constitute a new policy but rather the implementation of existing Israeli legislation concerning UNRWA. This rhetoric attempts to downplay a highly symbolic action as an ordinary administrative law enforcement case.
However, the on-site command level of the operation reveals its political weight. According to Palestinian reports, the demolition was carried out under the direct supervision of Israel's far-right National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir. Ben-Gvir is known for his hardline Jewish nationalist stance and has long advocated for strengthening control over the West Bank and weakening the status of Palestinian institutions. His personal involvement undoubtedly injected a strong ideological signal into this operation, indicating that it was not merely routine work by government departments but rather a politically symbolic action driven by high-level officials.
From a timeline perspective, this is a multi-step squeeze. As early as January 26, Israeli authorities had notified UNRWA of 10 facilities in Jerusalem, stating that their water, electricity, and communication services would be cut off and the properties confiscated. Subsequently, the demolition operations began at the headquarters in Sheikh Jarrah and are expected to extend to the training college in Qalandiya. An UNRWA spokesperson expressed helplessness, stating that the agency no longer has any headquarters, offices, or colleges remaining on the ground. This systematic, escalating series of actions reveals a strategic determination aimed at completely eradicating UNRWA's physical presence, rather than being isolated incidents.
"A Breeding Ground for Terrorism" or "A Lifeline"? The Narrative War Between Israel and Hamas
The core logic of Israel's defense for this operation is built upon accusations of what it claims to be deep ties between UNRWA and terrorism. The allegations in the Foreign Ministry's statement are extremely severe: UNRWA staff participated in the October 7 massacre and the abduction of Israelis. A significant number of employees within the organization are terrorists from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and its infrastructure has been used for tunnel construction, rocket launches, and terrorist activities. The statement ultimately concludes that UNRWA-Hamas is no longer a humanitarian aid organization but rather serves as a breeding ground for terrorism.
The use of the combined term "UNRWA-Hamas" marks a crucial step in the narrative. It no longer describes the two as potentially colluding entities but directly merges them into a unified hostile structure. This rhetoric frames any action against UNRWA within Israel's comprehensive war against Hamas launched after the October 7 incident, thereby seeking legitimacy for counter-terrorism discourse both domestically and internationally. Demolishing the headquarters of a United Nations agency located in the heart of Jerusalem and raising the Israeli flag visually and psychologically reinforces the narrative of clearing terrorist strongholds and restoring sovereignty.
However, the story told by UNRWA and its supporters is entirely different. For millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants, UNRWA has been a core provider of education, healthcare, relief, and social services since its establishment in 1949. The agency operates hundreds of schools, health centers, and aid programs in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, employing tens of thousands of local staff, the vast majority of whom are Palestinian refugees. A UNRWA spokesperson emphasized that the Kalandia Training Institute has trained tens of thousands of experts and technicians, highlighting the agency's long-term role in human capital development, not just emergency relief.
The conflicting narratives between the two sides touch upon one of the most fundamental and intractable issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: refugee rights and final status. Israel's position is that UNRWA perpetuates the intergenerational transmission of refugee status, hinders the resolution of the refugee issue, and serves as a platform for anti-Israel incitement and activities. On the other hand, the Palestinian side and many international observers argue that UNRWA's services are essential for sustaining the survival and dignity of Palestinians in the occupied territories, and its humanitarian functions are indispensable in the absence of a political solution. The dismantling of its facilities, particularly educational and training institutions, is seen as a direct blow to the future development capacity of Palestinian society.
This narrative war has also extended to the level of international law. Israel insists that its actions are in compliance with its domestic and international laws, as the site does not enjoy immunity. On the other hand, UNRWA points out that lowering the United Nations flag and forcibly occupying UN facilities are extremely rare in international practice, challenging the fundamental operational norms and dignity of UN agencies. Such an open challenge to international norms may have long-term impacts far beyond the fate of these few buildings in Jerusalem.
The Geopolitical Chessboard of Jerusalem: Sovereignty Claims and Status Predictions
Choosing to take action in Jerusalem, particularly in sensitive neighborhoods like Sheikh Jarrah and Ammunition Hill, carries profound geopolitical symbolism. The status of Jerusalem is one of the most central and sensitive sticking points in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The international community generally does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, with most countries locating their embassies in Tel Aviv. Israel, through legislation, declares Jerusalem as its eternal and indivisible capital and is committed to reinforcing this claim through changes on the ground.
Raising the Israeli flag in Sheikh Jarrah is a clear act of asserting sovereignty. It is not merely about planting a flag on reclaimed land, but rather about reinforcing Israel's control and presence in a community with long-standing property disputes, where Palestinian residents face the threat of eviction. Physically removing UN agencies from the core area of East Jerusalem and replacing them with national symbols represents Israel's unilateral effort to shape the reality of Jerusalem and pre-determine its final status. This can be seen as the latest step in a series of actions aimed at Israelizing East Jerusalem, including expanding settlements, restricting Palestinian construction, and strengthening security control.
Additionally, the location of the action, Ammunition Hill, is itself rich with historical metaphor. The name originates from a fierce battle during the 1967 Six-Day War, where Israeli forces defeated the Jordanian army, leading to the occupation of East Jerusalem. Demolishing a United Nations agency serving Palestinian refugees at this site subtly connects the historical thread from the 1967 military victory to the current political and legal actions, implying Israel's consolidation and extension of its wartime gains.
This action also further squeezes the Palestinian Authority's already weak presence in Jerusalem. The official activities of the PA in Jerusalem have long been strictly limited, and the presence of international agencies such as UNRWA once served as a form of external balancing force. With the physical spaces of these agencies being cleared, the institutional presence of Palestinians in East Jerusalem will become even more tenuous, further highlighting the fact of Israel's exclusive jurisdiction.
The silence, division, and potential chain reactions within the international community.
Faced with Israel's dismantling of the UNRWA headquarters and its seizure of its property, the international community's response presents a complex and fragmented picture. Unlike the strong condemnations and emergency meetings that similar incidents might have triggered in the past, the international reaction this time has been relatively muted. Behind this silence or low-intensity response lies an intertwining of multiple factors.
First, the October 7 incident fundamentally shifted the public discourse and political context in some Western countries, particularly among Israel's traditional allies. The brutality of the Hamas attack, along with subsequent Israeli allegations regarding UNRWA staff involvement in the attacks (though some claims remain under investigation), made openly defending UNRWA politically more challenging. Several major donor countries suspended funding to UNRWA after the incident, and although some later resumed support, the agency's credibility and political legitimacy have been damaged. Against this backdrop, Israel's framing of its actions as counter-terrorism and law enforcement makes it easier to find understanding, or even tacit acceptance, within Western circles.
Secondly, the United Nations system itself faces an awkward situation. As a sovereign state, Israel is a member of the United Nations. The UN Secretariat can issue statements expressing concern but lacks enforcement power. The Security Council, meanwhile, may be unable to pass any binding resolutions due to the United States' veto power. This structural sense of powerlessness often leaves the UN with little recourse beyond moral condemnation when facilities of its affiliated agencies are dismantled by a member state, rendering such efforts limited in effect. The UNRWA spokesperson's remark that no country in the world has ever done such a thing conveys both outrage and a sense of institutional helplessness.
However, the long-term chain reactions of such actions should not be underestimated. First, it may set a dangerous precedent where a country can unilaterally designate a United Nations agency as illegal and seize its assets based on its domestic laws. This undermines the legal safeguards that enable UN agencies to operate globally. Second, the continued suppression of UNRWA may exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. As the primary aid distributor in Gaza, any impairment to UNRWA's operational capacity directly impacts civilians' basic survival. Third, this could further fuel Palestinian grievances, laying the groundwork for a new cycle of violence. Fourth, it makes a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly the status of Jerusalem, even more distant, as facts on the ground are continuously altered unilaterally.
From a broader perspective, this reflects the current tension in global geopolitics between multilateralism and unilateral actions based on sovereign interests. When coordination among major powers fails and the authority of international institutions declines, regional powers are more inclined to adopt unilateral measures to advance their perceived security and political objectives. Israel's actions represent a typical practice within this global context.
Bulldozers can quickly reduce buildings to rubble, but the political dust they stir up will linger for a long time. Israel's demolition of the UNRWA headquarters in Jerusalem is far from the end of a simple real estate dispute. It is an external manifestation of the rightward shift in Israeli domestic politics and the absolutization of security thinking, a fierce struggle for narrative dominance over Palestinian refugees, another unilateral creation of a fait accompli regarding the status of Jerusalem, and a high-pressure test of the post-war international multilateral aid system.
The action has strengthened the Israeli government's control over its core agenda in the short term, meeting the domestic political forces' need to demonstrate a tough stance. However, it has also placed Israel on a more direct collision course with international law and United Nations practices, potentially deepening its image of isolation in the international community and making governance and humanitarian conditions in the occupied Palestinian territories more fragile and unpredictable. For Palestinians, this is not only a loss of service institutions but also another symbolic setback in their national aspirations. For the international community, particularly those forces still advocating for a two-state solution, this incident serves as another brutal reminder that without effective constraints and serious political process intervention, the facts on the ground will continue to drift further away from peace. The flag flying over the ruins marks the forced end of an old phase, yet it does not point to where the new path lies.