More than two years after the start of the war between Israel and Hamas on October 7, 2023, Gaza remains caught between destruction and diplomacy. Ceasefire agreements reached in late 2025 reduced the intensity of the conflicts but failed to resolve the political aspects of the crisis.
In recent months, Gaza has witnessed the complete opposite of the usual peacebuilding processes. Unlike past examples, the reconstruction process that normally follows a peace agreement remains overshadowed by sovereignty and security issues. This situation, reflected in the problems experienced in the UN Security Council, has led to the establishment of hybrid diplomatic mechanisms to overcome the political deadlock.
Therefore, Gaza has ceased to be merely a humanitarian crisis and has become a comprehensive stress test for the UN system. The rise of hybrid diplomatic mechanisms like the Board of Peace shows that the multilateral order is now forced to resort to such alternatives in the face of veto-driven deadlocks. Such pragmatic solutions also lead to the erosion of the UN’s institutional legitimacy. UNRWA Under Fire UNRWA, which has the largest aid network in the region, is at the heart of both logistical and political disputes. UNRWA communications director Jonathan Fowler summarizes the challenges facing the agency as follows: “Tragically, we have had almost 400 of our workers killed in the Gaza Strip. That has never happened in the entire history of the UN.”
In early 2024, many major donor governments suspended funding to UNRWA amid political disputes. Although some of these countries eventually resumed funding, the failure of key donors to return created structural damage. According to Fowler, funding cuts have an immediate impact on operations: “At the beginning of February, we had to reduce the level of service delivery across all the areas we operate in by 20 percent. That means fewer hours in schools and fewer hours for doctors in clinics.”
The Trump administration singled out UNRWA for criticism in its 2025 withdrawal from UN institutions. Mandate Versus Geopolitics The Gaza crisis exposes weaknesses in the Security Council’s structural design as the polarization surrounding Gaza makes the creation of a common action plan nearly impossible. The veto power of permanent members, primarily the United States and Russia, has long unilaterally determined the course of negotiations.
Thomas G. Weiss, a leading authority on the UN, offers a historical perspective: The current crisis is not all that different from the previous 80 years of crises. When states want the UNSC to work, it does. When they don ’ t—most of the time—it does not. The Charter was conceived exactly this way. No surprise. The structure was designed to work only when the major powers agreed or abstained. That was the case from 1945 to 1989 and is so once again. Although the Security Council remains the global system’s primary source of legitimacy, the political deadlock over Gaza has forced the international community to seek workarounds. Richard Gowan, the director of the International Crisis Group’s programs on global issues and institutions, describes this impasse as a structural reality: “The simple fact that the United States is sitting in the Security Council with a veto means that the Council is hamstrung when it comes to dealing with Israeli-Palestinian issues, just as Russia’s veto means it is paralyzed over Ukraine.”
According to Gowan, this paralysis was intentional: “The Security Council is structured to ensure that the veto powers can block challenges to their actions and those of their friends. That was part of the design in 1945.” He notes there is a “cynical but serious argument” that this is the price other countries pay to keep major powers within the UN system. “If the big powers lost the ability to veto resolutions relating to their core interests, they might defect from the UN altogether.” The Emergence of the Board of Peace The void created by the Council was filled by the U.S.-led Board of Peace, established in 2026 to facilitate the reconstruction of Gaza. The creation of the Board, which is not an official UN body, reflects a pragmatic adaptation.
Although the UN has been forced to shoulder the arduous logistics of aid distribution, it has been excluded from the high-level diplomatic processes shaping Gaza’s future. Instead, U.S.-led initiatives and informal coalitions like the Board of Peace Board have taken the lead, effectively turning the UN into a subcontractor for humanitarian aid.
This shift is the result of a long period of weakened authority. For years, crucial UN directives, such as Security Council Resolution 2334 on the illegality of settlements, have been ignored or blocked by the strategic veto of the United States. By 2026, the Gaza crisis has confirmed a new global reality: when major powers find the UN’s legal and moral standards inadequate, they establish parallel systems to circumvent them. This “diplomacy bypass” not only disables an institution but also has the potential to erode the very idea of a rules-based international order.
Robert A. Wood, a former U.S. alternate representative for special political affairs to the UN, describes these “informal adjustments” in this way: When draft UNSC resolutions fail, there are always efforts by the Council members and others to look for ways to address humanitarian concerns. While large-scale reconstruction of Gaza can go forward without UNSC approval, the Council’s blessing would be an important sign of the body’s political commitment to the people of Gaza. Because the politics surrounding the Gaza crisis are so volatile and unpredictable, any agreed UNSC resolution on reconstruction will be difficult, at best, to reach. When asked whether the success of mechanisms like the Board of Peace risks normalizing a model where major powers bypass the Council, Wood offers a nuanced perspective: Absolutely, the risk of normalizing such a model is there. Some would say that the major powers are already bypassing the Council… The Board of Peace, if successful in Gaza, could become a useful tool in the toolkit of the UNSC in dealing with the Middle East problem set. However, I don ’ t see it serving as a substitute for the Council, which is the only globally recognized body charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Risks, Reform, and Institutional Erosion The demand for reform of the Council is quite strong. Gowan emphasizes that during the UN General Assembly’s high-level meetings last September, 100 countries called for UNSC reform. However, according to him, the United States, China, and Russia will not take serious steps to achieve that goal in the near future. The Biden administration, although hesitant, has opened the door to reform, while the Trump administration is not keen on changing the existing UN. Weiss also remains skeptical: “The changes under discussion, especially additional members and vetoes, would make the UNSC more legitimate, for sure, but would also make it even less operationally effective.”
The long-term consequence, Gowan warns, is a gradual abandonment of the UN system: “I do worry that in the absence of the Council reform, we will see more and more states investing in negotiating forums outside the UN and ad hoc coalitions.” He concludes with a metaphor: “The UN feels like a pot on a stove that is overheating badly and will eventually boil over or explode.”
Gaza today stands at a critical juncture between physical devastation and an uncertain future. Although the UN, through UNRWA, faces its heaviest operational and financial test in history, political paralysis in the Security Council is forcing states to resort to hybrid and pragmatic diplomatic avenues such as the “Board of Peace.”
However, reconstruction in Gaza must not be limited to concrete and infrastructure. This process is also a struggle to regain the shaken legitimacy of the international system. Ignoring these interests risks undermining both legitimacy and sustainability. Whether hybrid diplomacy will strengthen this fractured system will depend on the commitment of global actors to the fundamental principles of peace beyond the rubble.
The post The Gaza Stress Test for the UN System appeared first on Foreign Policy In Focus .