On Friday, the U.S. put a resolution before the UN Security Council that “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire” while also encouraging diplomatic efforts “to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.” As the Wall Street Journal notes, an earlier draft connected these two aims more closely, but in the final version

the linkage comes only at a remove, in expressing support for diplomacy “to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.” The U.S. couldn’t “demand” the release of hostages if it wants to be popular at the UN. In case President Biden forgot, among the 134 hostages left in Gaza are five U.S. citizens who may still be alive.

Yet even this was not enough for Algeria, which abstained, or for Russia and China, which vetoed the resolution on the grounds that it was too friendly to Israel. The resolution also condemned Hamas—apparently an additional red line for these countries. The Wall Street Journal continues:

In the end, the U.S. gets a minor diplomatic win while locking in the “immediate ceasefire” wording as the starting point for future negotiations. That’s a strategic loss for Israel, which still needs to finish destroying Hamas. The Biden threat to Jerusalem of a ceasefire call without caveats has also been enhanced; the U.S. has already covered half the distance.

The larger story here is that the UN, with its long, continuing history of hostility to Israel, is the worst venue for solving the Gaza conflict. President Biden’s pressure on Israel could even harden Hamas’s resolve to reject a hostage deal, trusting that the U.S. will eventually stop Israel from finishing its Gaza campaign by clearing out Rafah even if there is no deal.

Yesterday, the Security Council took another stab at things, with a resolution sponsored by Algeria, Japan, Korea, and several others, and seemingly approved by the U.S. This one makes no mention at all of Hamas, but “demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties that leads to a lasting sustainable ceasefire and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” The U.S. abstained from voting, and did not exercise its veto power; all the other Security Council members voted in favor. Benny Avni observes:

While the American mission at the UN exerted pressure on council members, including a last-minute word change to “lasting” from “permanent” ceasefire, administration officials and Washington lawmakers intensified the pressure on Israel to avoid a Rafah operation.

Israel is yet to commence the evacuation of more than a million Gazans from the Rafah area. It is therefore unlikely to start its assault in the next two weeks [between now and the end of Ramadan]. And as Hamas is yet to accept a deal for releasing even some of the hostages, let alone all of them, the council’s resolution is unlikely to make much difference on the ground in Gaza or Israel.

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.