Monday was a very dark day for the Western world. The attempt by the United Nations Security Council to impose a ceasefire on Israel without condemning Hamas for instigating the current war, or insisting on the immediate return of Israeli hostages before a ceasefire begins — is perhaps the greatest injustice ever imposed on any country since the creation of the United Nations in the wake of the Second World War.

Since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations has ostensibly aimed to be the fulcrum of global peace and security, intervening in conflicts to halt wars and foster negotiations. However, the decision by the UN Security Council to mandate a ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, without condemning the latter for initiating the hostilities on October 7 , marks a stark departure from historical precedents. It is also galling hypocrisy to use Ramadan as a foil for this resolution, when Hamas deliberately chose a Jewish festival day as the date to launch its violent bloodbath against Jews.

These omissions are not just notable; they are practically unprecedented. In past interventions — except when it comes to Israel — the UN has repeatedly taken a more balanced approach, recognizing aggressions and violations of international law by all parties involved. This unique stance, with a resolution that is void of any condemnation of Hamas or demands for the return of hostages, raises questions about consistency, fairness, and the underlying principles guiding the UN’s decisions in international conflicts.

Just by way of comparison, in January, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2722, which called for the maintenance of international peace and security in the face of Houthi attacks on commercial navigation in the Red Sea. The resolution unequivocally condemned the Houthis’ aggressive actions, including the seizure of the ship, Galaxy Leader, and its crew, emphasizing the vital importance of unimpeded maritime commerce and the exercise of navigational rights under international law. The resolution demanded an immediate halt to such attacks, and called for the release of the seized vessel and its crew, highlighting the broader implications of these actions on global trade and regional stability.

And yet, the resolution also affirmed the international community’s commitment to supporting Yemen’s sovereignty and the capacity-building efforts of its Coast Guard, and underscored the need to prevent the provision of arms that could escalate the conflict. Significantly, Resolution 2722 balanced its firm condemnation of the Houthis’ actions with a call for restraint in military countermeasures and diplomacy, and urged all parties to engage in enhanced diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of the conflict and prevent further escalation in the Red Sea and the surrounding region. This balanced approach clearly demonstrates that the UN Security Council is capable of adopting a resolution that is comprehensive and balanced — except, apparently, when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians.

That Israel feels a sense of grievance over the UN Security Council’s resolution calling for a ceasefire is totally reasonable. Israel is surrounded by entities and nations with whom it has a complex and often hostile relationship, and Israel rightfully views its security and sovereignty as paramount. The failure of the resolution to explicitly condemn Hamas for initiating hostilities not only undermines Israel’s longstanding security concerns, but also raises questions about the UN’s impartiality in resolving this conflict.

Moreover, by not insisting on the immediate return of hostages before the ceasefire, the resolution has manifestly overlooked the human rights of Israeli citizens. To do so is to neglect the very principles of justice, fairness, and protection of civilians that the UN purports to uphold, contributing to Israel’s feeling of isolation and bias against it within the international community.

The resolution adopted on Monday highlights the grave dilemma facing Israel: how should a country that must confront terrorism, military threats, and an international community that is seemingly more concerned for its enemies, address its legitimate security needs and right to self-defense, when it will be held to a different standard than any other country?

Considering the far-reaching implications of having called for a ceasefire without directly addressing the actions of Hamas or the pressing issue of Israeli hostages, the UN Security Council must urgently reevaluate. If the United Nations purports to bear the mantle of peace and justice on the global stage, it must immediately issue a new resolution that explicitly condemns Hamas’ aggression, demands the immediate release of all the hostages, and outlines clear expectations for the cessation of hostilities that ensure the safety and security of all civilians — not just those living in Gaza.

Failure to reevaluate and issue a new resolution will show that the United Nations has devolved into nothing more than an instrument for the most corrupt elements within the international community, and irreparably damage whatever remains of the UN’s credibility, not only in the eyes of Israel, but also for any nation or group entangled in a conflict where alleviating human suffering is paramount.

Unless the current resolution’s shortcomings are promptly and effectively rectified, the consequences will be dire. The world will be markedly worse off, with human suffering only set to escalate. This moment calls for urgent action and integrity from the United Nations, lest its role as the foundation of hope and fairness in the international arena be forever compromised.

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.

The post Disgraceful UN Vote Is a Day That Will Live in Infamy first appeared on Algemeiner.com.