Is the UN still relevant in the Middle East?

Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, speaks during a United Nations Security Council meeting on Gaza and the Middle East, at UN headquarters in New York City on March 18, 2025. AFP / Angela Weiss

The UN, sidelined by Israel and the United States in the Middle East conflict, has little room for manoeuvre. But no long-term solution is possible without the international organisation, experts say.

In January, the fragile two-month ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was negotiated by the United States, Egypt and Qatar. It was intended to end the war between the two parties in three stages. The United Nations, historically a leader of peace mediations in the region did not take part in the process.

The war between Hamas and Israel, triggered by the attack on Israel by the Palestinian militant group some 19 months ago, shows no sign of ending. Analysts and observers say the UN could contribute more to resolve the conflict. The organisation has the ability to back a political solution, peacekeeping forces, distribution of humanitarian aid and support legally binding rulings of international law.

Instead, the UN is increasingly being sidelined in negotiations on the Middle East which are often conducted bilaterally outside the multilateral system. This comes on the back of increasing mistrust of the UN by Israel. 

“Historically, there has always been UN involvement in resolving the Middle East conflict,” says Marc Finaud, researcher at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former French diplomat.

1947 UN partition plan: The historical map outlining the proposed division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern history. Kai Reusser / swissinfo.ch

In 1947, the UN General Assembly decided the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. This allowed Israel to legitimately declare its independence. “[For the UN] The partition of Palestine was the basis for a solution to the Middle East conflict,” Finaud says.

Since then, the UN has been involved in all the major attempts to resolve the conflict and mediate peace through resolutions or through the work of its agencies on the ground. This has proved more or less effective, depending on whether there was support from the major geopolitical powers at the Security Council, namely the United States, China and Russia.

Israel vs the UN: a growing mistrust

The UN Security Council passed the first major resolution after the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The resolution laid the ground for a political and legal solution to resolve the conflict.

 “The most important basis (for a political and legal solution of the conflict) mentioned in the resolution was the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories through war,” Finaud said, adding that this violates the UN Charter.

A multilateral approach was simplified at the time, because no permanent member state of the UN Security Council vetoed the decision. Despite the Cold War, there was a kind of consensus among the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Finaud explained. “This strengthened the UN.”

In numerous resolutions, the UN states have since called on Israel to end the occupation, stop building settlements and reminded Israel of its obligations under international law. And many reports by independent UN experts have criticised Israel’s human rights violations which include arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings and collective punishment.

Israel has often cited security reasons and the right to defend itself when accused of breaching international law and international humanitarian law.

Areas occupied by Israel during the Six-Day-War. Kai Reusser / swissinfo.ch

According to Finaud, Israel no longer has confidence in the UN, as the General Assembly has repeatedly spoken out in favour of a two-state solution. Israel’s mistrust has now extended to UN humanitarian organisations, which it does not allow to work freely since the beginning of the war in Gaza.

All entry of aid into the strip was completely blocked by Israel from March 2 until May 19, provoking strong condemnation by the UN and other countries including France and the United Kingdom. At the Arab League summit held at the beginning of March, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres restated that the delivery of humanitarian aid is non-negotiable.

Refusing delivery of humanitarian aid is a war crime under international humanitarian law. Israel claims that Hamas is hoarding aid, which Hamas has denied.

“The current Israeli government is not interested in UN-led conflict resolution efforts,” Jan Egeland, secretary-general of the Norwegian Refugee Council and former UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, told SWI swissinfo.ch.

Since Israel broke the ceasefire on March 18, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has intensified attacks on Gaza vowing to take over all the enclave in a bid to definitively defeat Hamas.

Israel has started to privatise humanitarian aid delivered and managed until now mainly by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which it has banned from operating in the occupied Palestinian territories since the end of October last year.

Bilateral negotiations prevail

“The two most powerful players, Israel and the US, do not want to work with the UN,” says Cyrus Schayegh, Professor of International History and Politics at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

The current US administration led by Donald Trump has little consideration for multilateralism. “Trump believes that international relations should be led by bilateral negotiations between governments,” says Schayegh.

In Egeland’s view, the UN will be limited to its role as a humanitarian coordinator and normative guide for the member states. It will be up to the US, the Gulf states and the European countries to facilitate peace agreements, he says. But experts say any future peace solution would need UN backing and support in implementation.

“A political framework for resolving the Middle East conflict can only be defined by a UN Security Council resolution,” says Finaud.  “The foundations for this can be prepared or strengthened, as with the support of the ceasefire in January this year by the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly.”

Egeland also believes that Security Council resolutions are important in order to lend legitimacy to possible peace agreements and create a framework for their implementation – provided that all members of the Council agree.

A United Nations (UN) team inspects the grounds of Al-Shifa hospital, Gaza’s largest hospital, which was reduced to rubble by a two-week Israeli raid, on April 8, 2024, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas militant group. Afp Or Licensors

The UN Secretary General also has a moral authority and can support with what are known as confidence-building measures, or measures taken to create trust between parties in a conflict situation.

“The UN can do a lot if they are asked to promote confidence-building measures – such as prisoner exchanges – and humanitarian agreements,” says Egeland. These could be the first steps towards a comprehensive and overdue political solution, he added. But even such measures are getting more difficult. One day after the ceasefire was broken, Israel killed a UN employee and wounded five others in an attack on the clearly marked UN compound in Gaza. The UN has condemned the attack and has since decided to withdraw a third of the approximately 100 international employees from the area.

Developing international law

On a legal level, there are several ways the UN can impact the outcome of the conflict. The International Criminal Court (ICC), which works closely with the UN, issued an arrest warrant for war crimes against both Russian President Vladimir Putin after Russia started the war against Ukraine in February 2022 and Netanyahu for war crimes committed in Gaza between October 2023 and May 2024. For Finaud, this shows that the court is at the service of the law and that no one is above the law.

In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s highest court, ruled in an advisory opinion that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal. In a new development, it also called for Israel to evacuate over half a million settlers from the West Bank.

“The court is developing the law further,” says Finaud adding that the ICJ reaffirmed what the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council had already confirmed. International jurists say this ruling is important as it has to be taken into account in future negotiations on a solution for the Middle East conflict.

“The ICJ decision provides the legal basis that qualifies this situation as an occupation, so the only solution is the withdrawal of the armed forces,” says Finaud. “The principle is that Israel and Palestine coexist within their recognised borders.”

Finaud is referring to the borders determined in 1967 also called the Green Line. However, Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that he rejects the creation of a Palestinian state.

Edited by Imogen Foulkes, vm, livm/ac