LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 30/09

Bible Reading of the day.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Mark 4,21-25. He said to them, "Is a lamp brought in to be placed under a bushel basket or under a bed, and not to be placed on a lampstand? For there is nothing hidden except to be made visible; nothing is secret except to come to light. Anyone who has ears to hear ought to hear." He also told them, "Take care what you hear. The measure with which you measure will be measured out to you, and still more will be given to you. To the one who has, more will be given; from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

Saint Ignatius of Antioch (?-c.110), Bishop and martyr
Letter to the Ephesians, §13-15 (trans. Maxwell Staniforth)
"Nothing is secret except to come to light"
Do your best to meet more often to give thanks and glory to God. When you meet frequently, the powers of Satan are confounded, and in the face of your corporate faith his maleficence crumbles. Nothing can better a state of peaceful accord, from which every trace of spiritual or earthly hostility has been banished.
Given a thorough-going faith and love for Jesus Christ, there is nothing in all this that will not be obvious to you; for life begins and ends with those two qualities. Faith is the beginning, and love is the end; and the union of the two together is God. All that makes for a soul's perfection follows in their train, for nobody who professes faith will commit sin, and nobody who possesses love can feel hatred. As «the tree is known by its fruits» (Mt 12,33), so they who claim to belong to Christ are known by their actions; for this work of ours does not consist in just making professions, but in a faith that is both practical and lasting. Indeed, it is better to keep quiet and be, than to make fluent professions and not be. No doubt it is a fine thing to instruct others, but only if the speaker practises what he preaches. We have only one teacher (Mt 23,8): He who «spoke the word, and it was done» (Ps 33[32],9); and what He achieved even by His silences was well worthy of the Father. A man who has truly mastered the utterances of Jesus will also be able to apprehend His silence, and thus reach full spiritual maturity, so that his own words have the force of actions and his silences the significance of speech. Nothing is hidden from the Lord; even our most secret thoughts are ever present to Him. Whatever we do, then, let it be done as though He Himself were dwelling within us, we being as it were His temples and He within us as their God. For in fact that is literally the case; and in proportion as we rightly love Him, so it will become clear to our eyes.

Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special Reports
Advice for New Middle East Envoy George Mitchell.By: Mark Silverberg/Family Security Matters 29/01/09
Egypt slams Iran’s Hamas, Hezbollah connection-By Matthew Clark/Christian Science Monitor 29/01/09
Master of Delusion-By: Hooman Majd/Huffington Post 29/01/09

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 29/09
Nasrallah Shifts From Missing Lebanese to Missing Iranians-Naharnet
Lebanese Forces Hits Back at Nasrallah-Naharnet
Police: Blast Near Fatah Official Home in Lebanon Camp-Naharnet
Belgium to take command of UN maritime forces in Lebanon-Xinhua
Netanyahu: Iran nuclear crisis more important than financial meltdown-Haaretz
Olmert, Barak and Livni tell Mitchell: We will respond to every Hamas violation of truce-Haaretz
Livni: If Netanyahu Becomes PM, No Way to Recruit U.S. against Hizbullah, Hamas-Naharnet
Israel: Hizbullah Attack against Israeli Target in Europe Thwarted-Naharnet
Lebanese Foreign Relations Committee Criticizes Intervention of Ambassadors in Lebanese Security-Naharnet
Budget Crisis Threatens Lebanese Government-Naharnet
France to Withdraw Warships Serving with UNIFIL-Naharnet
Moscow Backs Lebanon's Defense Strategy-Naharnet
Egypt Hammers Hizbullah, Hamas, Qatar-Naharnet
Cedar-Shaped Island off Damour Coast-Naharnet
Venezuelan FM Says Caracas Doesn't Support Hamas or Hizbullah-Naharnet
Murr's Damascus Visit Pushed Border Issue Forward-Naharnet
Haaretz: Vessel Intercepted by U.S. Was Likely Carrying Arms to Hizbullah-Naharnet
Defense Strategy Expert Team to Hold 1st Meeting-Naharnet
Budget Crisis Threatens Government-Naharnet
Roger Tamraz Arrested in Morocco-Naharnet
French envoy says Syria prevents Hezbollah from attacking Israel-Xinhua
Report: Massive Hezbollah attack against Israeli target in Europe ...Ha'aretz
Assad stopped Hezbollah action over Gaza war: French envoy-AFP
Obama's peace push may collide with reality-Reuters
'Treat Iran as key player'/News24
Lebanese, Palestinian representatives of Islamic movements honored ...Xinhua
Syria-Lebanon politics on the pitch-BBC News

Nasrallah Shifts From Missing Lebanese to Missing Iranians
Naharnet/Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah disclosed Thursday that the bodies of Palestinian Dalal Mughraby and Lebanese Yahya Skaff were not included in a swap with Israel a year ago. Nasrallah, addressing a press conference on the first anniversary of the swap, also said the Lebanese government is responsible for disclosing the fate of four Iranian diplomats who went missing during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Nasrallah claimed the Israelis have provided Hizbullah with a report on the four Iranians, claiming they were kidnapped by the Lebanese Forces at a checkpoint in north Lebanon and killed later.
The Lebanese Forces Party, Nasrallah said, "has the key to the mystery" of the four Iranian diplomats.
"Had they turned them over to Israel, they should say that. Had they killed them, they should turn over their bodies," Nasrallah stressed.
The cabinet of national unity, in which the Lebanese Forces Party is represented and holds the justice portfolio, is responsible for the issues, Nasrallah added.
He was referring to Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar who had been nominated to the post by the Lebanese Forces.
The LFP says it has no information about the four Iranians, who allegedly went missing at the Barbara checkpoint at a time Elie Hobeika was in charge of the militia's security apparatus. Hobeika, who broke away from the Lebanese Forces at a later date and set up alliance with Syria, was killed by a powerful car bombing near his residence in Beirut's eastern suburb of Hazmiyeh on Jan. 24, 2002. Nasrallah also renewed his attack on Egypt, saying he "denounces" Cairo for refusing to open the Rafah crossing into Gaza. He also said the war on Gaza "has not stopped. It is persisting through other means. They are exerting pressure on Hamas as related to funding the rebuilding of the sector." He also urged Arabs to focus on the issue of "thousands of Palestinian and Arab detainees held by Israel." Beirut, 29 Jan 09, 19:07

Lebanese Forces Hits Back at Nasrallah
Naharnet/MP Antoine Zahra on Thursday said the Lebanese Forces Party is not involved in the case of the four missing Iranian diplomats.
Zahra was responding to a charge by Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah that the Lebanese Forces, which was the main Christian militia during the civil war, has the key to the mystery of the four Iranians who went missing during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The LF militia was disbanded in 1990 after the end of the civil war, and a political party was formed later.Zahra said "Nasrallah and Iran are aware that the LFP is not involved in the issue."
He said the four Iranians were apprehended at the Barbara checkpoint and "turned over to Elie Hobeika. The LFP knows nothing about this issue ever since."
"The Hobeika team should be asked about this issue, not the LFP," Zahra concluded. Beirut, 29 Jan 09, 19:35

Israel: Hizbullah Attack against Israeli Target in Europe Thwarted
Naharnet/A major Hizbullah attack against an Israeli target in Europe was thwarted in recent weeks, Israel's Channel 2 quoted security officials as saying.
The attack was foiled thanks to intelligence sharing between Israel and an undisclosed European country, the TV channel said Wednesday.
According to the Jerusalem Post, Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered Israeli security services last week to raise their level of alertness out of fear that Hizbullah would increase its efforts to launch an attack against an Israeli or Jewish target abroad ahead of the first anniversary of Hizbullah commander Imad Mughniyeh's assassination. The Lebanese Shiite group has accused Israel of involvement in Mughniyeh's Feb 12, 2008 murder and vowed revenge. The Jewish state has denied the charge. Around two weeks ago, several media outlets reported that a Hizbullah plot to blow up the Israeli embassy in Azerbaijan was foiled weeks after Mughniyeh's killing in a car bombing in Damascus, after Azeri intelligence discovered the plot. "Hizbullah's '1800 Unit' is said to be working on possible attacks inside Israel," the Times of London reported. "We will retaliate because the Sayyed made that promise," Abu Hassan, commander of a 25-man Hizbullah squad, allegedly told The Times, referring to Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. "The Israelis have killed our leaders in the past but we have always grown stronger. Nothing can shake Hizbullah." Beirut, 29 Jan 09, 08:51

Police: Blast Near Fatah Official Home in Lebanon Camp
Naharnet/A device exploded near the home of a Fatah official in the Palestinian refugee camp of Rashidiyeh in south Lebanon early on Thursday, causing only minor damage, police said. The blast in the camp near the port town of Tyre apparently targeted Hajj Faruq, an official of the mainstream party of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas. An official of the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, meanwhile, said portraits of the group's Damascus-based leader Khaled Meshaal had been ripped off walls in the camp. Other Hamas pictures, slogans and flags were destroyed in the refugee camps of Al-Maashouq in Tyre, Al-Jalil in the eastern town of Baalbek, and Burj al-Barajneh in Beirut's southern suburbs, he added, declining to be named.
Fatah's chief in Lebanon, Sultan Abul Aynayn, denied any involvement. "We have nothing to do with what happened in the camps," he said in a statement.
Hamas and Fatah have been at odds since the Islamists violently seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. The two factions are due to resume reconciliation talks in Cairo on February 22. The incidents in Lebanon came a day after Meshaal said in Doha that the Palestine Liberation Organization "in its current situation does not represent the Palestinian people," calling for an alternative.(AFP) Beirut, 29 Jan 09, 15:33

Belgium to Take Command of UNIFIL's Naval Mission
Naharnet/Belgium would lead the naval component of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon at the end of February after the expiration of France's 6-month leadership, UNIFIL spokesperson Yasmina Bouziane said Thursday.UNIFIL's naval force has been led by the European Maritime Force (EUROMARFOR) since Feb. 29, 2008 when it was under Italy's command. Italy's six-month leadership of the mission ended in Sept. 2008 and the command of the contingent was passed to France. Belgium is expected to assume the leadership of the mission after France's mandate ends in Feb 28, 2009. As a result of the leadership transfer, several changes will be made to the contribution of different countries to UNIFIL's naval force, according to Bouziane. Beirut, 29 Jan 09, 14:44

Master of Delusion
By: Hooman Majd
January 28, 2009
The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/master-of-delusion_b_161681.html
With President Obama making Middle East peace a welcome top priority early in his presidency (and dispatching the highly respected George Mitchell to the region this week), analysts, "experts," and opinion-makers are falling over themselves to offer their two cents on what will work, and what won't. Tom Friedman, ever anxious to give advice, writes in the New York Times that a "five state solution" is the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His imaginary letter from King Abdullah to President Obama is nice enough, but even Abdullah, mindful that Arab populations are furious with their leaders for having either enabled the Israeli war against Gaza or for showing virtually no support for impoverished Gazans under siege, would recognize that Friedman's solution is no solution at all.
The reality is that without Iran and Syria, no real peace will be possible in the Middle East. Abdullah's supposed proposal (penned by Friedman) includes Jordan and Egypt in the "five-state" mix, both authoritarian countries that have close relations with the U.S. (and Israel) and whose governments are hardly popular with their people, unpopular with Iranians and Syrians, and collaborators as far as some Palestinians are concerned. Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are supported by Iran and Syria, are perhaps the most important parties to a comprehensive Middle East peace (that includes Lebanon and the Shebaa Farms question), so ignoring those two countries in any negotiations for a settlement between Israel and Palestine (and Lebanon) is rather pointless. (One would hardly expect Mitchell to make his first stop in Tehran, but the exclusion of Damascus from his itinerary, where we actually have an embassy, seems rather short sighted too, given that Hamas' political leadership is based there.) Keen as Abdullah might be, as is Friedman, to neutralize Iranian and Syrian influence in the region and on the peace effort, he knows that ignoring them is delusional at best.
Hezbollah, now a legitimate party in Lebanese politics, is a creation of Iran, and one need only pay attention to one of Sheikh Nasrallah's titles (the leader of Hezbollah) to understand why Iran is crucial to any settlement that involves that group: "Representative of the Supreme Leader of The Islamic Revolution in Lebanon." That Supreme Leader was Ayatollah Khomeini when Hezbollah was created, and today it is Ayatollah Khamenei, which is one reason that wherever one goes in Hezbollah territory in the Levant, one sees posters of both men alongside Nasrallah's. (The Supreme Leader of Iran's title is not, as one might imagine, The Supreme Leader of Iran but The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution.)
Hamas, which is impossible to defeat militarily (it is not an army; it is a political philosophy as much as a party, and that philosophy can only be defeated if it is shown to be illegitimate or a failure, which so far it hasn't, thanks to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank), and enjoys great support throughout the Muslim world, has Syria and Iran as almost its sole benefactors. Although Hamas the political party will make peace if it is in its interests, and will not always necessarily do Iran's or Syria's bidding, it will be exceedingly difficult to convince its leadership that it must agree to a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel as long as it continues to receive the kind of unfettered support it does from Iran and Syria.
It may be distasteful to Abdullah (and of course his friend Friedman) to invite the Iranians and Syrians to the negotiating table, for it would legitimize their involvement in the peace process which the U.S.-allied Arab states, Israel and the U.S. are loath to do, and it may the last thing in the world that will be considered. But sometimes the last thing in the world to consider is the only thing that can actually solve a problem.

Egypt slams Iran’s Hamas, Hezbollah connection
By Matthew Clark | staff editor 01.28.09/-Christian Science Monitor
That seems to be the message Egypt is delivering to Iran.
Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, fired a verbal broadside against Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, on Wednesday, saying the three “worked together in the fighting over Gaza to provoke conflict in the Middle East,” reports Reuters.
“[They tried] to turn the region to confrontation in the interest of Iran, which is trying to use its cards to escape Western pressure … on the nuclear file,” Mr. Gheit said in an interview with Orbit satellite channel on Wednesday.
This comes one day after Iran summoned the head of Egypt’s interest section in Iran to protest the Egyptian government’s refusal to allow Iranian aid to pass through Egypt to Gaza.
But aid isn’t the only thing Iran is attempting to send to Gaza, according to numerous reports. “An Iranian freighter carrying weaponry for Hamas has been blocked by Egypt from entering the Suez Canal, amid concerns that Tehran is trying to supply the Palestinian militant group with missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv,” reports The Australian.
The Jerusalem Post reports that “the [Israeli Defense Forces] are concerned that Iran will supply Hamas with long-range Fajr missiles that are capable of reaching Tel Aviv.”
“This is a big test for the Egyptians,” a senior defense official said. “So far the Egyptians have prevented the ship from crossing the Suez and we hope it will stay that way.”
Egypt is on one side of a rift in the Arab world that is being exacerbated by Israel’s 22-day incursion into Gaza, which ended last week, as the Monitor’s Beirut-based correspondent Nicholas Blanford reports.
Across the Arab world the conflict continues to tear at the rift between factions that extol resistance to Israel and the Western-friendly autocracies and monarchies that rule in the region. As anger at Israel grows, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas backers in Iran and Syria gain more currency on the street at the expense of American allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. And this shifting tide of support could have an impact on US policy in the Middle East for decades.
The Monitor has written extensively on these divisions, including an in-depth series of stories by Istanbul bureau chief Scott Peterson about the rising clout of Shiites in the Muslim world and how it is unnerving the region’s Sunni-dominated countries.
Two years ago, the Monitor’s Middle East editor, Michael B. Farrell wrote about rising anti-Shiite rhetoric being directed at Saudi Arabia’s Shiite minority.
Mr. Blanford wrote last May about a panel discussion between top Sunni and Shiite leaders in the region. The consensus there was that the oft-reported Sunni-Shiite rift – aside from being overhyped by the press – was more about politics than religion.
Still, there’s little doubt that regional tensions remain. And how this latest spat between Sunni-dominated Egypt and Shiite-led Iran plays out could have great implications for stability in the region and for the way President Obama’s administration will be able to navigate peace efforts.

Advice for New Middle East Envoy George Mitchell
By: Mark Silverberg
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2388/pub_detail.asp
(Tel Aviv, Israel) With the recent appointment of former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell as the Obama administration’s special Middle East envoy, discussion will inevitably turn to Mitchell’s personal involvement in the Belfast “Good Friday” Agreement of April 1998 that involved the decommissioning of Irish Republican Army (IRA) weapons, and the commitment of the IRA to pursue its political goal of the reunification of Northern Ireland with Ireland by peaceful means. In 2003 and later in December 2008, Mitchell shared his vision for the Middle East conflict based on his Belfast experience: "There is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended," he said. He is about to discover that you cannot make peace with those who seek your destruction.
The developing field of “conflict resolution studies” in American and European universities seeks to apply lessons learned from political conflicts in one region of the world to conflicts in other regions often without regard to cultural and religious distinctions. For that reason, Mitchell’s appointment will no doubt lead academics, journalists, diplomats and American and European think-tanks to begin drawing parallels between
Britain and Ireland negotiating with terrorist organizations like the IRA and the need for Israel to follow the British/Irish example by commencing negotiations with Hamas. The Europeans particularly are of the view that establishing a dialogue with Hamas will lead it to change its ideology, cause it to renounce terrorism as a tactic, moderate its positions, stop its suicide bombings, relinquish its weapons, and lead to its recognition of Israel. The problem is that this view fails to take into account that Hamas and the IRA evolved in completely different historical, geo-political and cultural environments.
The difficulty with this approach was summed up recently in an article by Walid Phares concerning Guantanamo Bay detainees released in 2007 who have now returned to al Qaeda: “Jihadism as an ideology does not respond to the political culture of democracy nor are the indoctrinated Jihadists impacted by the moral and legal debate within what they see as the sphere of the infidels.” First and foremost, Gaza and the West Bank are not Northern Ireland, Hamas is not the IRA, and there are certain basic realities that are unique to the region – all of which he should know from his previous sojourn to the region in the wake of the Second Intifada. The argument suggesting dialogue with Hamas is rooted in the false assumption that two parties with diametrically opposing views can always achieve some sort of compromise. While Mitchell has stated this on more than one occasion, the assumption does not hold true in the case of a radical Islamic organization like Hamas.
Although most IRA members were Catholic, the IRA’s platform was essentially political in nature and revolved around throwing the British out of Northern Ireland and the unification of Northern Ireland with Ireland. The ideology of Hamas, however, has always been defined in religious terms that are not subject to influence, change, discussion or compromise. Its motto declares that "Allah is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes". These are not negotiable issues.
As in the case of al Qaeda, there is no division between Hamas’s political and religious objectives thereby making any significant change unlikely.
Hamas’ primary motivation is unambiguous. It seeks to create an Islamic state based on Sharia not just on the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel proper. On the other hand, while the IRA sought reunification with Ireland, the conquest and subjugation of Britain was never part of its political let alone religious agenda.
In Hamas’ worldview, there is no concept of co-existence with Israel or even Jews in a broader sense. Thus, talk of a “two state solution” is meaningless. Hamas’ sole rationale for existence is not and never has been the well-being of the Palestinians as we saw in the recent Gaza War where its use of Palestinian human shields was justified under Islamic law. Rather, its sole objective has been and remains the conquest of Israel and the subjugation of its citizens to Sharia – a throwback to the d’himmitude status under which infidels lived in Andalusian Spain a millennium ago.
As a consequence, Hamas waged war on the Oslo peace process in the 1990s, and its campaign of suicide bombings against Israel helped to derail that process and later the Mitchell Plan which failed due, in large measure to the Palestinian Authority’s inability or unwillingness to stop Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis and Arafat’s failed attempts to smuggle Iranian weapons into Gaza aboard the Santorini (2001) and the Karine-A (2002).
Moreover, the Hamas Charter adopted in 1988 defines the land of Palestine (including Israel) as "an Islamic Waqf" (trust territory) consecrated for future Muslim generations and adds: "Until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it" (Article 11). The Charter states "Israel will arise and will remain in existence only until Islam eliminates it as it has eliminated its predecessors." Its
Charter also defines the enemy explicitly as the Jewish people. In essence, Hamas cannot recognize Israel's right to exist without betraying its own raison d’etre. In contrast, the IRA never challenged Britain's right to exist either politically or religiously, nor did ethnic cleansing ever form part of IRA objectives.
And there are other distinctions that Sen. Mitchell had best consider prior to transposing his IRA experience onto Hamas.
First, separate and apart from bestowing legitimacy on a radical Islamic organization and conveying to its leaders the impression that American weakness has forced the U.S. into negotiating with it, Hamas’ use of violence (“armed resistance”) is perceived by the majority of Palestinians not as a liability (as it eventually came to be seen in the case of the IRA) but as a positive political attribute.
Second, after the IRA ceasefire of 1994, specific ground rules for participation in negotiations were established and a code of conduct agreed to between the parties - a commitment by all sides to abide by "democratic and exclusively peaceful means" for resolving political issues and the “total disarmament" of all Catholic and Protestant paramilitary groups.
Insofar as Hamas is concerned, establishing principles governing the conduct of negotiations by infidels like Mitchell are inconsistent with its Charter, its religious ideology, its modus operandi, and its Jihadist creed. Hamas’ Charter (Article 13) emphatically rules out any possibility of a peace process or the use of mediators to achieve a compromise since there can be no compromise with its jihad. In effect, there is nothing to negotiate with Israel other than its destruction and ultimate submission to Islam. This is not idle rhetoric as many choose to believe. Rather, in a broader sense, it is this same theology that represents the essence of our conflict with radical Islamists.
The only characteristic the IRA and Hamas share in common is that both are terrorist organizations. But that is where the similarity ends. Due to the nature of the IRA's "war" and its loss of support following the Omagh bombing on August 15, 1998, it became possible to negotiate peace and the decommissioning of its weapons. Hamas however is sworn to the destruction of Israel as a religious imperative so any attempt to negotiate that away would be futile.
As John Bew and Martyn Frampton wrote in their August-September 2008 dissertation for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affair (“Talking to Terrorists: The Myths, Misconceptions and Misapplication of the Northern Ireland Peace Process”): “So long as (Hamas) exerts its stranglehold on its own (Palestinian) community, and refuses to consider the recognition of Israel, there is a danger that negotiating with the organization will strengthen its position against more moderate alternatives, as well as bolstering its belief that it can achieve its ultimate objectives.”
Despite the belief of President Obama and his advisers that not talking to our enemies is a mistake, and given the pressure the Europeans can be expected to exert on Sen. Mitchell to negotiate with Hamas, the Obama administration had best tread carefully before engaging an organization that is the ideological cousin of al Qaeda and the Palestinian offspring of the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood. Granting Hamas legitimacy and access to the prerogatives of state power (even in conjunction with the Palestinian Authority) will prove to be a costly strategic error for all parties concerned.
On January 26th, Osama Hamdan, Hamas' representative in Lebanon said: “The Palestinian Authority must end its peace talks and security coordination with Israel if it ever expects to reconcile with Hamas.” That being the case, the best President Obama can hope for is to degrade Hamas to the point where its power and credibility are severely damaged, and to establish an international body with accountability, transparency and unprecedented oversight responsibilities to insure that the billions of dollars set to flow into Gaza reconstruction contribute directly to Palestinian life, and not end up in the political coffers of the corrupt, brutal and vastly unpopular Palestinian Authority* or Islamist Hamas which will see a national "reconciliation" government as a means to gain international recognition, reap the billions of dollars of international aid, and rebuild their offensive capabilities against Israel using the Fatah-led PA as a cover while subverting Fatah control on the ground.
*For details, see - Dan Diker and Khaled Abu Toameh, “Can the Palestinian Authority's Fatah Forces Retake Gaza? Obstacles and Opportunities, Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs”,
No. 569, January-February 2009.