In a statement to the UN Security Council published on GOV.UK, the UK government said implementation of President Trump's Comprehensive Peace Plan for Gaza, endorsed in UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in November 2025, is at risk of stalling eight months later. The statement argued that the plan still offers a route to lasting peace, but only if the parties now deliver on the commitments already set out. The UK structured its intervention around three immediate priorities: humanitarian access in Gaza, renewed progress on security and governance arrangements, and a response to the worsening situation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That framing matters because it shifts the discussion from broad diplomatic objectives to specific measures that can be judged against events on the ground.
On humanitarian conditions in Gaza, the UK said civilians are still living amid sewage, rubble and severe deprivation. It acknowledged progress from the famine-level conditions seen last year, but said the latest IPC snapshot still points to 1.2 million people facing significant food shortages and to around 90% of the population remaining dependent on humanitarian assistance. The central point in the UK case was that avoiding famine is not, by itself, an adequate policy benchmark. Food may exist in some private markets, but availability does not resolve the problem if prices remain out of reach or if the most vulnerable households cannot access supply. In practical terms, the statement argued for a standard based on reliable civilian access to food, basic services and recovery support, rather than emergency survival alone.
The UK therefore called on Israel to meet its commitments under the plan by allowing unimpeded humanitarian access. It specified three areas: opening more crossings into Gaza, simplifying the dual-use approvals process, and permitting life-saving as well as essential recovery items to enter. The statement also made clear that humanitarian access should not depend on movement elsewhere in the political process. That is a significant position in policy terms, because it treats aid delivery as an immediate legal and operational requirement rather than a bargaining point between tracks.
At the same time, the UK raised concerns about Hamas obstructing humanitarian operations. Referring to remarks made to the Council by Deputy Special Coordinator Alakbarov, the statement cited the recent incident at a World Food Programme distribution centre and said actions that disrupt life-saving assistance are unacceptable. The operational conclusion was straightforward. The UN system, including UNRWA, as well as non-governmental organisations, must be able to work safely and at scale if relief efforts are to have any measurable effect. Without that operating space, even additional funding or supplies will struggle to translate into consistent civilian access.
On the second track, the UK said renewed movement is needed on security, governance and recovery in Gaza. It repeated its position that Hamas must decommission its weapons and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure, but set this within a phased and verified process rather than as a stand-alone demand. According to the statement, that process should develop alongside a stronger Palestinian security presence, the deployment of an International Stabilisation Force, and a sequenced Israeli withdrawal. The practical effect would be to link demilitarisation, administration and external security guarantees, with the aim of avoiding any permanent arrangement that leaves Gaza divided or millions of Palestinians living under Hamas control.
The funding and reconstruction element was presented as part of the same approach. The UK said it had joined the Team Gaza Initiative at the recent Palestinian Donor Group and announced more than 13 million US dollars for the UN Horizon Fund. The stated purpose of those commitments is to support Palestinian-led delivery across all of Gaza. In policy terms, that points to a recovery model built around local civilian administration rather than fragmented or indefinite stopgap arrangements. The UK position is that recovery finance should reinforce a future political settlement, not make territorial or governance division harder to reverse.
Beyond Gaza, the UK said the direction of travel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is deeply concerning. It pointed to the violence of 24 July 2026, in which four Palestinians and two Israelis were killed, and called for de-escalation, restraint, compliance with international law and accountability for crimes. That assessment treats events in the West Bank not as isolated incidents but as part of a broader deterioration in stability and security. For officials following the file, this is important because continued violence in the West Bank can weaken any wider diplomatic effort and make already limited confidence-building measures harder to sustain.
The statement also highlighted pressure around Jerusalem's holy sites and UN facilities. The UK said it was alarmed by the 23 July 2026 mass incursion at Haram al Sharif, also known as Temple Mount, by thousands of Jewish worshippers, and restated that the status quo on Jerusalem's holy sites should be respected. It further raised reports that Israeli forces entered an UNRWA training centre near Kalandia refugee camp on 28 July 2026. The UK linked those incidents to settler violence and to Israeli government policy more broadly. It said 104 Israeli settlements have been approved in four years and that billions of dollars have been allocated to speed up construction, describing this as a deliberate effort to erode the possibility of a two-state solution. The closing message was that progress on humanitarian access, security arrangements and restraint in the West Bank and East Jerusalem now needs to be visible and immediate if a two-state outcome is to remain credible.