The first thing we thought of when we read of America’s victory in its Supreme Court case against the Humanitarian Law Project is the crisis in respect of Gaza. The case, brought by Attorney General Holder, didn’t involve Israel or the Gaza crisis per se, but rather activities on behalf of the PKK, which is fighting against the Turks, and of the Tamil Tigers. The Obama administration asserted its authority to prevent any material support going to a terrorist organization, even support designed to be used for activities of the terrorists that might be legal, like humanitarian aid. The Humanitarian Law Project raised First Amendment and other constitutional objections. But the Supreme Court, in a six to three ruling, waved them aside, noting the government’s contention that material support meant to “promote[e] peaceable, lawful conduct” can  further terrorism by foreign groups in “multiple ways.”

The decision reflects an understanding of what we call the meaning of war. Three justices may have bought into the Law Project’s argument that there is a first amendment right to help even a terrorist organization with legal activities. The court, however, concluded that the concept that material support can be fungible not only in the financial sense. Quoth the Court, in an opinion written up by Chief Justice Roberts: “Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups — legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds — all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.” It quoted one treatise on the Politics, Charity, and Terrorism of Hamas as reporting that “[I]nvestigators have revealed how terrorist groups systematically conceal their activities behind charitable, social, and political fronts.”

Wouldn’t it be nice were President Obama and Attorney General Holder to send a copy of the opinion they’ve just won against the Humanitarian Law Project to Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel, along with a note that might say something like, “Take heart.” The case of the Humanitarian Law Project case might not have involved Mr. Netanyahu. But the prime minister of Israel, like Mr. Holder and Chief Justice Roberts, knows that humanitarian aide can help Hamas in 
“multiple ways.
” In sending its defense force to raid the flotilla that was seeking to deliver humanitarian aid to Hamas stronghold in Gaza, Mr. Netanyahu was facing up to precisely the kind of problem Mr. Holder was facing. It would be nice to let him know that fact is appreciated in Washington. Messrs. Obama and Holder have won an important victory in the legal struggle over the current war, one involving principles that are in play far beyond our own shores.