A glance at the three UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the wake of the conflict that broke out between Hamas and Israel on October 7 will be seen to have failed miserably.
Israel maintains that the horrendous act of terror perpetrated by Hamas deserved severe condemnation by the UN in place of a compromise with this murderous entity.
Yet each resolution (2712, 2720, and, most recently, 2728 in March 2024) was designed to serve a political purpose – appeasing Hamas by envisioning a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem.
They fail to address the full criminal character in international law of the terrorist attack and its horrible sequel of seizing civilians as hostage captives.
Moreover, there is no reference to the need for an agreement to be formulated by the parties themselves as stipulated in the 1967 Resolution 242, and as confirmed in all subsequent Security Council resolutions.
The search and promotion of a two-state solution with Hamas represent a violation of the UN charter, not its fulfillment.
Many things are surprising about the current series of resolutions. For one thing, the US supported adoption of the first two of the resolutions, but not the third one (Resolution 2728).
But neither did the US object to the text of that formula for peace that this resolution envisaged.
Washington elected to abstain from voting on the resolution. It could have vetoed the misguided resolution in the Security Council but failed to do so – to Israel’s dire regret.
Secondly, the UN Security Council chose to adopt a resolution that related to the future of Hamas – not to its punishment for a hideous international crime.
The resolution called on Hamas to conduct itself in accordance with international law, rather than condemning Hamas for its dastardly crimes on October 7 and rather than joining the US in supporting Israel in its self defense.
The most surprising aspect of the Security Council treatment of Hamas is UN respect for the conduct of this savage terrorist entity completely as a party eligible for anything – except the most severe condemnation, accompanied by the imposition of severe sanctions.
Above all, Resolution 2728 is not a reason for settling anything. It is designed to promise a settlement, as if Hamas is anything but a vile entity publicly bent on promoting the complete destruction of Israel.
The UN must realize that the two-state vision has been completely repudiated by this latest episode that has shown that Hamas is not a candidate in Israel’s eyes for any sense of joint toleration or cohabitation – a complete impossibility.
CONTRARY TO the belief of the US and the UN, the violence and conspiracy of Hamas have utterly destroyed any possibility of a common solution.
Hamas has one design, the complete destruction of Israel and its replacement by a Hamas-Palestinian entity, as its charter proclaims – “from the river to the sea.”
After an episode of utter cruelty and violence, there is no room for tolerating such a state on Israel’s border.
Four wars to destroy the Jewish state and thousands of terrorist acts, capped by October 7, demonstrate the utter futility of talking about a two-state scheme.
Thus the conduct of the Security Council was a total disaster and should never have received Washington’s blessing.
Instead of eradicating the entity that slaughtered men, women, and children in the most vile manner, and captured civilians for bargaining purposes, this entity, the Security council decided, must be appeased.
But the UN has no legal authority to impose Hamas on Israel’s doorstep and threaten its existence.
The Security Council was designed to preserve international peace and ensure joint survival, not to impose an enemy that strives to destroy an existing state. Even as a simple suggestion, the UN scheme constitutes an utter abomination.
One wonders what notion inspired the US administration to appease Hamas rather than scold it for totally inhuman behavior.
The answer may derive from the 1973 success achieved by then-secretary of state Henry Kissinger in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War to reconcile Egypt and Israel for a successful settlement.
Perhaps the current administration thought that a similar venture stood every chance of succeeding in the present case of Hamas-Israel as well.
What were Kissinger’s principles? One was that neither side should be allowed to win a knockout victory in the conflict, as that would spoil any chance of reconciling both parties to a settlement.
Moreover, the US should be generous in financing the steps to a reconciliation. No other state was in a position to provide support to both parties; only Washington could finance a joint settlement.
Finally, both countries would enjoy coming under the American sphere of protection.
The UN, it must be remembered, was designed to preserve peace and not create states that publicly threaten existing states.
The UN Security Council’s role is to facilitate peaceful settlements, not the destruction of states. No such power was granted to the world body.
The UN, and the United States, overestimated the power and authority assigned to the Security Council in international affairs.
The analogy of a peaceful settlement with Hamas is a design without the possibility of realization.
The Kissinger design was a unique settlement that was in no way a relevant design that could tantalize the road to Middle Eastern peace.
Israel will not accept a fateful design that would threaten, rather than promote, peace.
The designers of the Hamas settlement should recognize that Kissinger is dead and that the special terms and circumstances of Egypt and Israel of 1973-74 are limited to that era and those circumstances.
They are remote from the present reality of a terrorist entity planning the destruction of a state.
The UN blunders when it imagines that the majority of Israelis will condone the destructive design of Hamas terror. The UN should strive for peace, not its reverse.
The writer is the James G. McDonald Professor of American History, emeritus, and a former chairman of the Department of American Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Comments are closed.