The headline declares: “Resolution against terrorism not what it seems.”

And the United Nations and its Security Council get another failing grade, this time from Joshua Muravchik, writing in the Los Angeles Times.

Supposedly, the council voted recently to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan. It first appeared to be a declaration that at least would give the Russians some degree of solace.

“But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning a war against terrorism,” writes Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after the train bombings in Spain, and after 9-11, the United Nations still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.

“The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which comprises 56 of the United Nations’ 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.”

Terrorism as a right? According to some nations, it all depends on the target and the motive.

The United States tried to get firm language against terrorism in the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan. The resolution condemns “all acts of terrorism irrespective of motivation.”

“This sounds clear,” Muravchik writes, “but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the United Nations, the term ‘acts of terrorism’ does not mean what it seems.

“For eight years now, a U.N. committee has labored to draft a ‘comprehensive convention on international terrorism.’ It has been stalled since Day 1 on the issue of ‘defining’ terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of ‘national liberation,’ no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.”

That really means that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad but terrorism on behalf of good causes, like a jihad, perhaps, is good. Who determines good and bad? The United Nations certainly has failed to define it.

“Obviously anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all — but only against bad causes,” declares Muravchik, who concludes, “As long as the Islamic states resist any blanket condemnation of terrorism, we will remain a long way from ridding the Earth of its scourge. And the United Nations will be helpless to bring us any closer.”

Meanwhile, we can only wonder which causes some Islamic sources are deciding will be “good” up to and following our presidential election process. Whatever the decision, don’t expect the United Nations to step in and crack down.