The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question: Vote on a Draft Resolution*
This afternoon (4 June) at 4 pm EST, the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution on the war between Israel and Hamas that was initiated by the Council’s ten elected members (E10). The draft text in blue demands an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza; the immediate, dignified, and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups; and the immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into the territory.
Conditions in Gaza have continued to deteriorate amid Israel’s escalating military operation following the expiry of its ceasefire agreement with Hamas in March and the country’s decision to prevent the entry of humanitarian aid into the territory. These developments have resulted in thousands of casualties, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and large-scale displacement, as well as a critical risk of famine, according to the most recent Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) special snapshot. On 19 May, Israel announced that it would restore limited access to allow a “minimum” amount of humanitarian aid to enter the territory until a new aid delivery mechanism that Israel and the US have developed was operational.
Most Council members remain concerned about that mechanism. Alleging aid diversion by Hamas, Israel and the US have advanced a plan coordinated by a new private entity called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) that would bypass the existing delivery architecture run by the UN and its humanitarian partners. The GHF has begun delivering aid at designated distribution sites secured by US contractors and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The UN and its partners have refused to participate in the mechanism, calling it a “militarized distribution system” that does not adhere to humanitarian principles and does not replicate the scale or accessibility of existing aid delivery channels. Since the mechanism became operational on 27 May, several security incidents near GHF sites have led to significant civilian casualties. On 1 June, dozens of Palestinians were reportedly killed or injured while seeking aid from a distribution site in the southern city of Rafah. Yesterday (3 June), approximately 27 people were reportedly killed after IDF soldiers opened fire near the same site. The Secretary-General condemned both incidents in separate statements issued Monday (2 June) and yesterday, both of which called for “an immediate and independent investigation into these events and for perpetrators to be held accountable”.
In response to the increasingly dire conditions in Gaza, it seems that several Council members—Algeria, France, and Slovenia—initiated separate draft resolutions on the situation. After informal consultations, these countries eventually agreed that Algeria and Slovenia, along with Guyana, would introduce a single draft. On 27 May, these members convened a meeting of all E10 countries to discuss the possibility of advancing that draft as a joint E10 product. While there was apparently some debate about the appropriate language to use in reference to certain elements—including Hamas and the release of hostages—it seems that the elected members agreed on the key provisions of a draft resolution. They decided to advance a short, one-page text comprised of three operative paragraphs, respectively demanding an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza; the immediate, dignified, and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups; and the immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza and its safe and unhindered distribution at scale.
This draft was subsequently shared bilaterally with each of the Council’s five permanent members (P5) for comment. It seems that the US expressed reservations about the draft and made several proposals that it considered prerequisites for further engagement, including a condemnation of Hamas and expression of support for the GHF. Other P5 members apparently signalled overall support for the resolution but suggested certain revisions: France and the UK also sought language condemning Hamas, while Russia proposed several edits, including the deletion of references to the IPC report and to resolution 2735 of 10 June 2024—on which Russia abstained—that welcomed the 31 May 2024 ceasefire proposal announced by the US.
As several of the proposed changes were unacceptable to other members, the E10 apparently viewed their initial draft as the most balanced reflection of positions. Led by Slovenia in its role as E10 coordinator, the group proceeded to place the draft under silence procedure without modifications on 30 May. The US immediately broke silence, not reiterating the substantive concerns that it had shared bilaterally but instead criticising the negotiations as rushed for not including a formal comment period open to all Council members. It also described the initiative as ill-timed amid the ongoing talks it is mediating between Israel and Hamas on a new ceasefire agreement. Following further bilateral consultations with the US, it seems that the E10 members maintained that the draft remained the fairest possible compromise among Council members’ divergent views and proceeded to place it in blue without revisions.
At today’s vote, the US may veto the draft resolution in light of its above-stated positions. This would be the fifth draft resolution on the Israel-Hamas war vetoed by the US since the conflict started on 7 October 2023. Despite the possibility of a US veto, however, it seems that the E10 chose to move forward with the vote as a political signal to emphasise the need for Council action as the ceasefire negotiations have so far failed to achieve a breakthrough and the humanitarian toll of the conflict continues to rise.
_____________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 4 June, the Security Council voted on the draft resolution submitted by the Council’s ten elected members (E10). The draft text failed to be adopted owing to a veto by the US. The remaining 14 members voted in favour.
