In 1975, the U.S. Canada, and most European states—the Soviet Union included—signed the Helsinki accords, which, although meant to foster détente between the Eastern bloc and the West, also included an agreement to respect universal human rights. A year later—40 years ago yesterday—a group of Soviet dissidents founded the Moscow Helsinki Group to hold their government accountable for its violations of these rights. Natan Sharansky, one of the group’s founders, reflects on what it and other similar organizations achieved, and the lessons for today’s Western leaders:

Step by step . . . our struggle gained momentum. . . . [A] powerful network of governmental and non-governmental monitoring groups was created, and as a result the Soviet Union was effectively cornered—it could not simply impose its own interpretation of Helsinki’s [human-rights provisions] on the rest of the world. This non-binding agreement thereby became one of the strongest weapons haunting the regime until its death.

Today, as many in the West push for conciliatory agreements with regimes no less oppressive than the USSR, it is worth recalling that the KGB and the philosophy of Realpolitik were not the only opponents we faced in our struggle back then. Another major obstacle was the peace movement, those thousands of well-meaning Westerners demanding to remove American missiles from Europe and to appease the Soviet Union in the name of avoiding war. . . . Make sure the Helsinki process avoids nuclear war, they said, and then we can speak about the rights of Soviet citizens.

Our answer to these unsophisticated idealists was equally clear: the highest human value is not peace simply, but peace in conditions of freedom. If peace were the ultimate good, dictatorships would exist forever, because no one would endanger his life fighting for basic rights. . . .

If we remember one lesson on the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Group, then, let it be this: we should not be led into complacency by agreements that promise peace with dictatorships without demanding internal change. If we don’t continue standing up for dissidents and for the shared values they represent, we will soon find ourselves as much at the mercy of their oppressors as they are.

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.