The resolution also suggests a diplomatic sequence that begins with an “immediate” cease-fire, and leaves for the future the efforts of UN member states to provide arrangements that “prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition.” halts its defensive operations, but may well be left empty handed at a later stage.

There is also a disturbing symmetry between and the Palestinian side, which appears in Resolution 1860. Despite the language of the resolution, most international observers agree that Israeli civilians should not have to face rocket attacks from Hamas in the future, and hence Hamas must halt this activity. But in Resolution 1860 there is a demand of in parallel, “to ensure the sustained reopening of crossing points” between and Gaza . It is as though the cessation of rocket fire and the opening of the crossing points are symmetric demands that are increasingly mentioned in the same breath by commentators. This is like asking for a quid pro quo for Hamas stopping terrorism.

This is moral equivalence at its worst. should not pay anything to get Hamas to stop firing rockets which is an act of outright aggression against the Jewish State. When invaded , the UN Security Council did not seek Kuwaiti concessions alongside its demand of to withdraw.…

 In January 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections while in June 2007 Hamas launched a military coup against the PA in Gaza . Hamas provided sanctuary to organizations like Jaish al-Islam or Jaish al-Umma which identified themselves as al-Qaeda affiliates. This put the Hamas regime in a category like the Taliban which had allowed the original al-Qaeda to grow in its domain. Given the completely changed circumstances created by the Hamas takeover, it is surprising that the Security Council came back to hold to [the failed November 2005] agreement [with the P.A.’s Abbas] over [access to] Gaza ….

 Finally, , with the backing of the Western powers, decided to embargo the Hamas regime in Gaza . Trade embargos are a state’s inherent right, like the embargo of or . Hamas is a particularly severe case for it calls for ’s destruction, engages in suicide terrorism against Israeli citizens, and brainwashes Palestinian children with anti-Semitic hatred. To compel to open the Gaza crossing points is to deny a valid economic instrument to exercise its right to self-defense….

Perhaps underpinning Resolution 1860 is an assumption of normalized relations in the future between Hamas and the State of Israel. This makes the abstention at the UN all the more disturbing. The Bush administration, which led the diplomatic fight against terrorism after 9/11, appears to be acquiescing to granting rights to a terror regime that in reality should not earn any more international protection than the Taliban did in 2001.

 (Dore Gold served as ’s ambassador to the UN and today
is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.)