The dilemma of UN SC Resolution 1860

The U.N. Security Council Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, has lost it’s purpose as parties involved in the conflict the Hamas and Israel rejected the resolution as either not conducive or not workable.

The text and even the method with which the resolution was passed shows the in ability of U.N. Security Council to deal with serious issues and let alone it’s effective implementation on ground and as ever the political divide within the U.N. security council triumphs once again.

The U.N Security Council Resolution 1860 will go into the archives without being able to achieve it’s goal, simply because the parties involved in the conflict more specifically hamas did not have any representative at the U.N. to voice their views and to guarantee a commitment to the Resolution.

The arab leaders who pushed for a resolution so hard seems to have done this, with not an aim to find a sustainable solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but to ease the Arab public pressure built during the course of the conflict which was further fueled by the graphic broadcast of the conflict by Arab media

Hamas is not a member nor does it have a permanent representative at the U.N. reasonable enough as it is a banned terrorist organization, so there can be no effective political or economical sanction against Hamas for failing to implement the resolution. Then the question arises, does U.N. need to intervene in issues involving terrorist organization? Are we having the right definition for a Terrorist organization?

Source: The Terror Journal

Filed under: Analysis , Afghanistan, Aid, Analysis, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gaza, Gaza strip, Hamas, Hezbollah, IAF, IDF, India, Israel, Kassam Rockets, Katyusha Rockets, Middle East, News, Operation Cast Lead, Pakistan, Palestine, Palestinian Authority, Qassam Rockets, Sderot, Terror, Terrorism, The Terror Journal, U.N, U.S.A, UK, War