The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question: Briefing on the Humanitarian Situation in Gaza
Tomorrow afternoon (18 June), the Security Council is expected to hold an open briefing on “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question”. The Council’s ten elected members requested the meeting to discuss the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Four of the Council’s five permanent members—China, France, Russia, and the UK—supported the meeting request. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher and a representative of an international non-governmental organisation (INGO) are the anticipated briefers. Israel and the Observer State of Palestine to the UN are expected to participate in the meeting.
Despite the current ceasefire in Gaza—established by the US-brokered “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict”, which the Security Council endorsed through resolution 2803 of 17 November 2025—hostilities have persisted and the humanitarian situation in the territory remains dire. According to the most recent update from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), dated 13 June and citing local health authorities, Israeli airstrikes, shelling, and gunfire have killed 981 Palestinians since the ceasefire was announced on 10 October 2025.
On 10 June, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) expressed concern about reports of violence by “Palestinian armed elements in Gaza that appear to be backed by Israeli forces”. OHCHR referred to an incident the day before during which members of these armed elements established a checkpoint in central Gaza and detained several Palestinians, including seven ambulance crew members from the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS). According to the PRCS, five of the crew members were eventually released, but two were taken to an unknown location; one of these was also later released but the other remains “forcibly disappeared”.
Meanwhile, nearly the entirety of Gaza’s population of 2.1 million people remains displaced, many in unsafe and unsanitary conditions lacking basic necessities. In its 13 June update, OCHA reported that insufficient funding is threatening the water supply for the 70 percent of the population who rely on the trucked delivery of bottled water. In an 11 June update, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) reported that severe shortages of engine oil, tyres, and spare parts are placing life-saving humanitarian operations at risk across the Gaza Strip, with a particular impact on healthcare facilities, which rely on generators that face frequent breakdowns.
Both UNRWA and OCHA report that insecurity, border closures, and access restrictions continue to exacerbate humanitarian challenges. In late April, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reportedly issued maps showing that they controlled 64 percent of the territory, having advanced past the initial “yellow line” demarcating the approximately 50 percent of Gaza’s territory that Israel was allowed to hold during the first phase of the ceasefire. More recently, on 28 May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the IDF to seize control of 70 percent of the enclave.
Since March 2025, Israeli authorities have blocked UNRWA from directly bringing humanitarian personnel and aid into the Gaza Strip, and last month the Israeli High Court of Justice upheld new registration requirements that Israeli authorities had introduced in 2025 for INGOs operating in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). Several dozen aid groups—including Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the International Rescue Committee (IRC), and Oxfam—had refused to comply with the new measures—which include a requirement to submit complete staff lists to Israeli authorities—contending that they violate humanitarian principles. Israel subsequently revoked their licences, citing security concerns. The Court, which had previously issued a temporary injunction suspending enforcement of the new measures, gave the de-licenced organisations 30 days (that is, by 21 June) to comply with the new screening protocols or cease operations.
In an 8 June joint statement, 21 countries—including Council members Denmark, France, and the UK, as well as incoming members Austria and Portugal—and the European Union (EU) expressed their “profound concern regarding the catastrophic humanitarian situation that persists in Gaza”. The statement called the recent decision of the Israeli High Court of Justice “deeply concerning” and characterised the registration law for INGOs as part of a broader pattern of restrictive measures impeding humanitarian operations. While the statement recognised Israel’s security concerns, it urged the country not to implement the registration law in its current form. The statement also called on Israel to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law and allow all internationally recognised humanitarian organisations—including INGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and UN agencies such as UNRWA—to carry out their work without obstruction. In remarks delivered during a 10 June Security Council meeting, Secretary-General António Guterres similarly called for “the immediate removal of obstacles that systematically undermine the nature and scale of humanitarian relief in Gaza”.
At tomorrow’s meeting, the briefers and most Council members are likely to echo these messages. Fletcher may stress the need for adequate humanitarian funding and urge contributions to OCHA’s 2026 Flash Appeal for the OPT, which was only 24 percent funded at the time of writing. Some speakers might also emphasise the importance of mobilising resources for Gaza’s vast recovery and reconstruction needs, which the UN, the EU, and the World Bank estimated in an April joint assessment will cost $71.4 billion over the next decade. That includes an estimated $26.3 billion required in the first 18 months, which the UN has sought to address through the establishment of a new early recovery fund. On the political track, speakers may reiterate their call for the Palestinian Authority (PA) to swiftly assume its governance duties in Gaza, which is currently overseen by the international Board of Peace (BoP)—chaired by US President Donald Trump—that the Comprehensive Plan established and the Security Council endorsed through resolution 2803 as a “transitional governance administration” in the enclave. In this regard, some speakers may warn that further prolonging the status quo risks entrenching the fragmentation of Gaza and the OPT as a whole.
By contrast, the US may dispute the prevailing characterisation of Gaza’s humanitarian situation. It could repeat the assertion that the BoP made in its first biannual report to the Council, dated 15 May, that aid distributed by UN agencies and humanitarian partners has increased by 70 percent compared with pre-ceasefire levels—although it has remained lower than the level stipulated by the Comprehensive Plan, according to humanitarian organisations. The US may also refer to the “15-point roadmap” for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan that the BoP report outlined, which conditions further progress on the peace deal—including the IDF’s withdrawal and Gaza’s reconstruction—on the verified decommissioning of Hamas’ weapons. In this regard, the US may blame the slow implementation of the Comprehensive Plan on Hamas, which has reportedly rejected disarmament proposals, arguing that Israel is in breach of its own ceasefire obligations by continuing hostilities and maintaining restrictions on humanitarian aid.
While Gaza is the expected focus of tomorrow’s meeting, some speakers may also touch on the situation in the occupied West Bank, which continues to see increasing settler violence and settlement expansion, deteriorating economic conditions, and the imposition of administrative measures deepening Israeli control over the territory. On 4 June, at Bahrain’s request, Council members convened for closed consultations to discuss these developments. In that session, it seems that nearly all Council members expressed concern that Israel’s actions in the West Bank—which observers have described as a policy of “de facto annexation”—were jeopardising the viability of the two-state solution. The US, however, apparently blocked draft press elements affirming the Council’s opposition to annexation, despite reiterating its own opposition in this regard. These dynamics may also be reflected in statements at tomorrow’s meeting.
