There is no doubt that slandering Israel remains a major preoccupation of the United Nations—as evidenced by the recent General Assembly resolution condemning Jerusalem’s actions at the Gaza border while making no mention of Hamas. But Elliott Abrams sees signs that change is afoot:

The final resolution [regarding Gaza] passed 120 (yes) to 8 (no) with 45 abstentions. Who were the eight countries voting no? The United States and Israel, several Pacific island states, Togo, and Australia. Last year Australia’s government announced that it was through with unfair and unbalanced UN treatment of Israel and would henceforth vote against such resolutions in all parts of the UN system. And so it has done. . . .

In the General Assembly [debate], the United States introduced an amendment that inserted a condemnation of Hamas in the [proposed] resolution text. . . . Algeria moved to quash the American amendment, but, remarkably, the United States won that vote 78 to 59 (with 42 abstentions). That is an amazing event in the UN: 78 countries opposed the Arab position and voted on the U.S./Israeli side, and only 59 supported the Algerian [motion].

There was then a vote on whether to adopt the American amendment . . . : the amendment passed 62 (yes) to 58 (no), with 42 abstentions. In the UN, that is an astonishing result—a slim margin to be sure, but a win nevertheless. Because UN rules require a two-thirds majority, the amendment was not in the end adopted—but the voting pattern is far better than many past UN votes. And in this skirmish, all 28 EU countries voted with the United States. That’s the good news. . . .

Future progress will require more diplomatic work, by Israel and the United States. Additional votes can be changed, in Latin America, Africa, and perhaps Europe.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.