You brought up money in the context of dozens of countries making statements condemning Hamas and Israel across the board for human rights violations. A little bit of oil clout does not come anywhere CLOSE to explaining that. It might, at best, explain a softer word used here or there. Not world consensus of human rights violations. What causes the consensus is in fact much simpler and more straightforward -- They are agreeing, because they're all recognizing the same obvious reality of violations occurring...
Except, duh, this resolution isn't targeted at hamas AT ALL.
...Did you read it? Yes, it is.
The Council condemns all violence against civilians wherever it occurs, including the killing of two Israeli civilians as a result of rocket fire; calls for an immediate cessation of Israeli military assaults throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and an end to attacks against all civilians, including Israeli civilians;
The resolution is calling for the cessation of both sets of attacks.
The fact that the language includes a larger amount of finger wagging at Israel might have, oh I don't know, perhaps something to do with that fact that at the moment, Israel is killing hundreds of times more people than Hamas is.
In any case, I care less about the resolution anyway than I do about the country comments. Resolutions mean jack from the U.N. normally. And they might be written by just a small subset of nations. The split out individual comments are therefore much more relevant to our discussion, I think.