Hamas, Israel, and the Convenience of ‘Militant Wings’

Today on NRO

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: The U.S. government is generally expected to act in the interest of the people of the United States. How to Think about Immigration.

IAN TUTTLE: NBA superstar Lebron James realizes that the place he sought was there in Cleveland all along. Welcome Home, Mr. James.

TOM ROGAN: Meet the man who has replaced bin Laden as the leader of global jihadism. A Portrait of Death: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

THE EDITORS: The people who like to say "You can't legislate morality" intend to make their own moral inclinations mandatory. Progressive Illiberalism.

SLIDESHOW: Bastille Day.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

July 14, 2014

Hamas, Israel, and the Convenience of 'Militant Wings'

Drones: So cheap and easy even Hamas can use them:

Israel's military said it shot down a drone along the country's southern coast on Monday, marking the first time Palestinian militants have used such an aircraft in their latest confrontation with Israel.

The drone took off from the Gaza Strip and was downed by a Patriot surface-to-air missile near the southern Israeli city of Ashdod, the military said.
Israel didn't comment on the specifications of the drone or whether it was armed.

"We had it in our sights the moment it took off, and we chose where to intercept it,'' military spokesman Lt. Col Peter Lerner said. The wreckage of the drone fell into the Mediterranean, reported Israel Radio.

The Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, claimed responsibility for the drone and said it would continue its "surprises."

Ah, the "military wing." Hamas' Khaled Meshaal told Al-Jazeera last month, "Hamas is comprised of a political wing and a military wing."

Really? Because from over here, it looks like a public-relations wing and a convenient-scapegoat wing. "Oh, it wasn't us that fired those rockets! It was our militant wing!" Militant wings are the evil twins of geopolitics. If your organization has a military wing — as opposed to an actual, declared, uniforms-and-everything-military — you're probably a troublemaker. You notice the good guys in life rarely have a militant wing. "I'm with a hardline faction of the Red Cross." "I'm with Mother Theresa's paramilitary branch."

These groups really seem to think that the political wing can't be blamed for what the militant wing does. Guys, you're two halves of the same chicken. Colonel Sanders just sees one bird.

The Israeli Defense Forces Twitter feed declared this morning that "Since July 8, 38 rockets fired from Gaza have fallen within Gaza. Hamas fires from civilian areas . . . and hits its own people." They've also released video of three airstrikes called off because of risk to civilians.

Hamas uses its own people as human shields in an effort to get international sympathy. How does Hamas continually sell this strategy to the Palestinians? Remember, they've won elections! How do you win at the ballot box with the slogan, "To protect ourselves, we're going to use you and your children as human shields!"? You're really awful, Fatah; you lost an election to an alternative that was promising to get the voters killed.

They've kept the slogan; the IDF is touting this July 13 video from Al Aqsa TV, with Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri declaring, "We aren't leading our people today to destruction. We are leading them to death." See, that's totally different, critics!

Of course, Fatah and Hamas are all buddy-buddy now. They've put aside their differences and united . . . in favor of using women and children as human shields.

Wouldn't you love to see a Hamas leader on Dr. Phil? "How's that workin' out for you, Hamas?" Has any Palestinian leader contemplated, "Hey, maybe we need to rethink this calculus? Because throwing the women and children in front of the missiles hasn't really worked for the past generation." Sting sang that the "Russians love their children too." I notice he didn't sing about Hamas.

(I thought this was a great line, and then found James Taranto made a similar point in 2009. Darn it.)

Congressional Democrat Assesses Obama on Border Crisis: 'How Do You Defend Inaction in the Face of a Crisis?'

Oh, good. The Democratic party is suddenly awakening to the fact that just maybe Americans aren't comfortable with an unsecure border and mass illegal immigration.

Until now, the politics of immigration have been seen as a no-lose proposition for President Obama and the Democrats. If they could get a comprehensive overhaul passed, they would win. And if Republicans blocked it, the GOP would further alienate crucial Hispanic and moderate voters.

But with the current crisis on the Southwest border, where authorities have apprehended tens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American children since October, that calculus may be shifting.
the president's own party is deeply divided over what must be done now — particularly on the sensitive question of deporting children who have traveled thousands of miles and turned themselves in to U.S. authorities to escape from the desperate situations they faced in countries such as Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
The emergency has also renewed questions about the administration's competence, reminiscent of those raised during the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, last year's botched rollout of the health-care law and more recent revelations of mismanagement that jeopardized care of patients at veterans hospitals.

I believe the technical term used by political scientists that best expresses the moment of revelation within this phenomenon is "DUH!"

Elsewhere in that article, we see Congressional Democrats tearing into the president in a way unthinkable in his first term. Welcome to the life of a lame duck, Mr. President.

"The numbers have spiked recently, but this is not a new development," said Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.). "It seems to me that the administration just wasn't paying close attention and could have acted sooner."

But Rep. Pete Gallego, a Texas Democrat whose district includes more than 40 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border, said he was less concerned about Obama skipping a Rio Grande Valley photo opportunity than he is about a lack of engagement in Washington.

"Rather than going to the border, I'd rather he invite some people over and start a conversation about how we are going forward," Gallego said in an interview. "How do you defend inaction in the face of crisis? How is that defensible for anybody?"

Oh, and NBC's Ron Allen checked in with an immigration court to see how it's handling children who cross the border. The results will not surprise you:

Based on a day spent observing an immigration court in New York City, most of them can breathe a little easier: No one appears to be ordered out of the country any time soon . . .

On this morning, most appearances lasted only a matter of minutes. After some brief judicial banter, and official business, Schoppert instructed just about every defendant to try to find a lawyer, and report back to court in February. He essentially put the "removal process," on hold, and allowed these young migrants to get on with their new lives in America.

Diego's attorney Merrill Clark was optimistic about his future. "He's going to be legalized," Clark insisted. "I haven't lost a case like this one yet."

If you can enter the country illegally and stay as long as you like without consequence, we don't have an immigration system.

Obamacare Will Cost Way More Than Projected? The Devil You Say!

Easily overlooked, airing on a Friday afternoon and evening before a summer weekend: All those changes to Obamacare implemented by the president to save his administration and Congressional allies from the political consequences of it are botching the law's financial impact.

President Obama's health care law has been delayed and changed so many times that the official budget scorekeepers can no longer keep track of what the law costs.

The changes, and the overall uncertainty regarding the price tag, are raising concerns about whether the law even has enough revenue coming in to pay for the program.

"Right now the savings that was projected to pay for all this spending is not being collected as originally projected," said Charles Blahous, of the Mercatus Center. He estimated the law will eventually cost $200 billion a year by 2020 . . .

"There was about $100 billion that was supposed to come in over the next 10 years from penalties on individuals, if they did not carry health insurance, penalties on employers, if they do not offer health insurance, and to date, those penalties have not been enforced," Blahous said.

The law also counted on more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicare, including up to $150 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, but the president set those aside at the behest of Senate Democrats who feared angering seniors in an election year.

Obama fans are convinced they've done a good job controlling the deficit, high-fiving that this year's deficit is projected to be $583 billion — from the worst in U.S. history in Obama's first year in office to the sixth-worst, adjusted for inflation. (You can probably guess which years are numbers two through five.) How much are their current deficit projections counting on Obamacare costing what they originally thought?

ADDENDA: Unfortunately, my event to discuss The Weed Agency and the federal bureaucracy at the Union League Club in New York City that was scheduled for Thursday is canceled. I may be attending the club's Book Fair on December 4, and may also be holding an evening event early in 2015 . . .

. . . It's nice to live in a world where "Germany Won!" doesn't automatically send a chill down your spine.

. . . The U.S. military is researching and developing its own "Iron Man" suits. No flight or repulsor beams for a while, but head-to-toe bulletproof armor, temperature control and exoskeletons to help carry heavy gear are in the mix.

Coming soon to a terrorist hideout near you.

To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com

Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here.

Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital.

National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.