278 WINEP - funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC, and located one door away

(1) AIPAC-backed Pro-Israel Letter to Obama signed by most of Congress & Senate
(2) Chomsky says Tea Party is path to Fascism
(3) Peace Activists Extend an Olive Branch to the Tea Party to Talk about War
(4) $1M fund to fight sex abuse in Orthodox Jewish communities hasn't been used
(5) WINEP - funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC, and located one door away
(6) With Kagan on Supreme Court, there would be three Jews and no White Protestants
(7) Gaza economy reviving because of tunnels

(1) AIPAC-backed Pro-Israel Letter to Obama signed by most of Congress & Senate

From: Sami Joseph <sajoseph2005@yahoo.com> Date: 15.04.2010 02:17 AM

76 US Senators Sign on to Israel Letter

Ben Smith

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25227.htm

April 14, 2010 - More than three quarters of the U.S. Senate, including 38 Democrats, have signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicitly rebuking the Obama Administration for its confrontational stance toward Israel. The letter, backed by the pro-Israel group AIPAC, now has the signatures of 76 Senators and says in part:

We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.

A similar letter garnered 333 signatures in the House, and its support marks almost unified Republican support for Benjamin Netanyahu's government, along with strong, but more divided, public Democratic discomfort with Obama's policies in the region.

Signatories include key Democrats like Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, and Robert Menendez as well as all but four Republicans, with signers including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Scott Brown.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin, however, did not sign; nor did Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry and ranking member Richard Lugar.

The full Senate letter, circulated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Johnny Isakson, is here. ...

(2) Chomsky says Tea Party is path to Fascism

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date: 15.04.2010 12:31 PM

Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America

By Matthew Rothschild, April 12, 2010

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-politics/1489
-chomsky-warns-of-risk-of-fascism-in-america

Noam Chomsky, the leading leftwing intellectual, warned last week that fascism may be coming to the United States.

"I'm just old enough to have heard a number of Hitler's speeches on the radio," he said, "and I have a memory of the texture and the tone of the cheering mobs, and I have the dread sense of the dark clouds of fascism gathering" here at home.

Chomsky was speaking to more than 1,000 people at the Orpheum Theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, where he received the University of Wisconsin's A.E. Havens Center's award for lifetime contribution to critical scholarship.

"The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime," he said.

He cited a statistic from a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters say the average tea party member is closer to them than anyone else.

"Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error," Chomsky said.

Their attitudes "are understandable," he said. "For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy."

There is class resentment, he noted. "The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels," he said.

And Obama is linked to the bankers, Chomsky explained.

"The financial industry preferred Obama to McCain," he said. "They expected to be rewarded and they were. Then Obama began to criticize greedy bankers and proposed measures to regulate them. And the punishment for this was very swift: They were going to shift their money to the Republicans. So Obama said bankers are "fine guys" and assured the business world: 'I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.'

People see that and are not happy about it."

He said "the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism" is what is fueling "the indignation and rage of those cast aside."

"People want some answers," Chomsky said. "They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin."

Chomsky invoked Germany during the Weimar Republic, and drew a parallel between it and the United States. "The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy," he said.

And he stressed how quickly things deteriorated there.

"In 1928 the Nazis had less than 2 percent of the vote," he said. "Two years later, millions supported them. The public got tired of the incessant wrangling, and the service to the powerful, and the failure of those in power to deal with their grievances."

He said the German people were susceptible to appeals about "the greatness of the nation, and defending it against threats, and carrying out the will of eternal providence."

When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, "the center very quickly collapsed," Chomsky said.

No analogy is perfect, he said, but the echoes of fascism are "reverberating" today, he said.

"These are lessons to keep in mind."

(3) Peace Activists Extend an Olive Branch to the Tea Party to Talk about War

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date: 15.04.2010 12:31 PM

By Medea Benjamin, AlterNet, April 14, 2010

http://www.alternet.org/story/146441/

On Tax Day, Tea Party members from around the country will descend on the nation's capitol to "protest big government and support lower taxes, less government and more freedom." CODEPINK, a women-led peace group advocating an end to war and militarism, will be sending some representatives to begin a dialogue. While we come from the opposite end of the political spectrum and don't support the goals and tactics of the Tea Party, there is an area where we are seeking common ground, i.e. endless wars and militarism.

As Tea Partiers express their anger at out-of-control government spending and soaring deficits, we will ask them to take a hard look at what is, by far, the biggest sinkhole of our tax dollars: Pentagon spending. With the Obama administration proposing the largest military budget ever, topping $700 billion not including war supplementals, the U.S. government is now spending almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.

Perhaps the Tea Party and peace folks--unlikely allies--can agree that one way to shrink big government is to rein in military spending. Here are some questions to get the conversation going:

At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference on April 10, Cong. Ron Paul--who has a great following within the Tea Party--chided both conservatives and liberals for their profligate spending on foreign military bases, occupations and maintaining an empire. "We're running out of money," he warned. "All empires end for financial reasons, and that is what the markets are telling us today. We can do better with peace than with war." Do you agree with Congressman Paul on this?

Every taxpayer has already spent, on average, a staggering $7,367 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (costofwar.com). Obama is now sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, with a price tag of one million dollars per soldier per year. Opposition to these wars ranges from liberal Cong. Dennis Kucinich and conservative Tea Party leader Sheriff Richard Mack. During a Congressional vote to end the war in Afghanistan that was defeated but got bipartisan support, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said, "Nearly 1000 U.S. soldiers have died. And for what? Hundreds of billions spent. And for what? To make Afghanistan safe for crooks, drug dealers and crony capitalism?" Do you think Congress should turn off the war spigot and bring out troops home?

The Cold War has been over for 20 years, yet the U.S. government maintains 800-plus bases around the world with troops stationed in 148 countries and 11 territories. Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan asks, "How we can justify borrowing hundreds of billions yearly from Europe, Japan and the Gulf states -- to defend Europe, Japan and the Arab Gulf states? Is it not absurd to borrow hundreds of billions annually from China -- to defend Asia from China?" Should we begin to dismantle this global web of bases?

Far and away the largest recipient of US foreign aid is Israel, a wealthy country that gets $3 billion a year from Uncle Sam with no strings attached and no accountability. We also give the repressive Egyptian government over a billion dollars a year to buy their support for a Middle East peace plan that is going nowhere. Are you in favor of continuing this taxpayer largesse to Israel and Egypt?

An area where Pentagon spending has mushroomed is the payment of private security contractors. While many soldiers who risk their lives for their country struggle to support their families, private security company employees can pocket as much as $1,000 a day. High pay for contract workers in war zones burdens taxpayers and saps military morale. Moreover, military officers in the field have said contractors often operate like "cowboys," using unnecessary and excessive force that has undermined our reputation overseas. Cong. Jan Schakowsky introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security Act that would phase out private security contractors in war zones. Do you support that?

Experts on the left and the right say we could cut our military budget by 25%, including closing foreign bases, winding down the wars, and ending obsolete weapons systems, without jeopardizing our security. Do you agree?

We are not naive to think that it would be easy for the Tea Party and the peace movement to work together. Our core values are different. We have had our battles in the past. We would certainly part ways in terms of how to redirect Pentagon funds, with progressives wanting more government investment in healthcare, jobs, clean energy and education--which is exactly what the Tea Party opposes.

But building peace means reaching out to the other side and trying to find common ground even with those people whose beliefs contradict so many of our own. If the Tea Party is really against runaway government spending, then certainly we can work together to cut a slice out of the military pork that is bankrupting our nation. In extending the olive branch to talk about war, the conversation can hopefully be enlightening on other issues as well, such as banks run amok and undue corporate control of our government.

Who knows what kind of potent brew could emerge when folks on the left and the right--both alienated by a two-party system that doesn't meet our needs--sit down for tea?

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK:Women for Peace.

(4) $1M fund to fight sex abuse in Orthodox Jewish communities hasn't been used

From: Denis McC <wizard_of_aus@hotmail.com> Date: 14 April 2010 13:03

BY SIMONE WEICHSELBAUM

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Thursday, March 11th 2010, 10:59 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_1m_to_fight_hasidic_sex_abuse_sits_unused_since_2009.html#ixzz0i4qU1Sy4

{photo caption} The state earmarked $1M to fight sexual abuse inside Orthodox Jewish communities in New York - but none of the money has been used. Gavrysh/AP/AP {end}

None of the nearly $1 million set aside to tackle sex abuse in New York's ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities has been spent, even as another program set up to help scrambles for cash.

The state has earmarked $950,000 since April 2009 to fund Assemblyman Dov Hikind's plans to teach Hasidic Jews to speak up against child molestation.

But the money sits untouched as Hikind figures out the details of Shomrei Yeldainu - Hebrew for "Guardians of our Children" - the Daily News has learned.

"You have to develop something that is done correctly working with the rabbis and leaders," said Hikind (D-Brooklyn).

The $950,000 was included in the 2009 state budget for the Office of Family and Children's Services, said Matt Anderson, a budget spokesman for Gov. Paterson.

It's the first time the state has funded a sex abuse program geared toward helping a specific ethnic group.

"Apparently, the Hasidim will only go to the Hasidim for help," said Edward Borges, an FCS spokesman.

While Hikind's program waits to spend its vast funding, another is making do with much less. Project Kol Tzedek - Hebrew for "Voice of Justice" - is up and running on a relative shoestring budget.

Kol Tzedek was created in April 2009 within the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office Sex Crimes Bureau.

A $40,000 grant from Altria Group Inc., a cigarette company, pays the salary of the program's sole orthodox Jewish social worker.

Nearly 100 people have called the hotline and more than 30 ultra-Orthodox Jewish men have been arrested, including 16 who have been charged with felony crimes.

This adds to the workload of the already overburdened team of 18 prosecutors in the Brooklyn Sex Crimes unit, said Bureau Chief Rhonnie Jaus.

There's no money for more staffers.

"We work from our own budget," said Jaus. "That is all the resources we have."

simonew@nydailynews.com

(5) WINEP - funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC, and located one door away

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 14.04.2010 12:50 AM

Kevin MacDonald: Robert Satloff and the Jewish Culture of Deceit

April 13th, 2010

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/

Kevin MacDonald: Stephen Walt had the audacity tosuggest, given Dennis Ross’s close ties to WINEP, that Ross should not have a policy-making position on Middle East issues in the Obama Administration. Neocon Robert Satloff responded with outrage, claiming that Ross has been doing nothing but promoting “U.S. interests in peace and security for the past quarter-century.” And he disingenuously asks, “To which country do we allegedly have a ’strong attachment’? Our foreign-born scholars hail from virtually every country in the Middle East — Turkey, Iran, Israel, and at least a dozen different Arab countries.”

The best response is by M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, an organization that advocates a two-state solution to the conflict:

Steve Rosen [who was acquited on charges of spying for Israel in 2009] … cleverly came up with the idea for an AIPAC controlled think-tank that would put forth the AIPAC line but in a way that would disguise its connections.

There was no question that WINEP was to be AIPAC’s cutout. It was funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC employees, and located one door away, down the hall, from AIPAC Headquarters (no more. It has its own digs). It would also hire all kinds of people not identified with Israel as a cover and would encourage them to write whatever they liked on matters not related to Israel. “Say what you want on Morocco, kid.” But on Israel, never deviate more than a degree or two.

In other words, Satloff’s claims that WINEP is not tied to any particular lobby or country are part of an ongoing subterfuge that fools no one except the mainstream media: “It matters because the media has totally fallen for this sleight of hand and WINEP spokespersons appear (especially on PBS) as if WINEP was not part of the Israel lobby. Some truth-in-labeling is warranted.”

This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas. Because they are a small minority in the US and other Western societies, Jews must recruit support from the wider community. Their positions cannot be phrased as benefiting Jews, but as benefiting the interests of the society as a whole. As a result, these movements cannot tell their name.

A great example is the $PLC, an organization that we now know is funded by Jews and, apart from the sociopathic Morris Dees, is also largely staffed by Jews. Yet whenever there is a story about “immigrant rights” or angry White people, the SPLC is called on by the mainstream media as a “respected civil rights organization” rather than for what it is: A Jewish activist organization actively attempting to further the ethnic interests of Jews, typically at the expense of White Americans.

This sort of subterfuge was true of all the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique. As I noted in Ch. 6:

It is thus not surprising that although these theories were directed at achieving specific Jewish interests in the manipulation of culture, they “could not tell their name”; that is, they were forced to minimize any overt indication that Jewish group identity or that Jewish group interests were involved …. Because of the need for invisibility, the theories and movements discussed here were forced to deemphasize Judaism as a social category—a form of crypsis discussed extensively in SAID (Ch. 6) as a common Jewish technique in combating anti-Semitism. In the case of the Frankfurt School, “What strikes the current observer is the intensity with which many of the Institute’s members denied, and in some cases still deny, any meaning at all to their Jewish identities” (Jay 1973, 32). The originators and practitioners of these theories attempted to conceal their Jewish identities, as in the case of Freud, and to engage in massive self-deception, as appears to have been common among many Jewish political radicals. Recall the Jewish radicals who believed in their own invisibility as Jews while nevertheless appearing as the quintessential ethnics to outside observers and at the same time taking steps to ensure that [non-Jews] would have highly visible positions in the movement (pp. 91–93). The technique of having non-Jews] as highly visible exemplars of Jewish-dominated movements has been commonly used by Jewish groups attempting to appeal to gentiles on a wide range of Jewish issues (SAID, Ch. 6) and is apparent in the discussion of Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy. … [Chap. 7]: Beginning in the late nineteenth century, anti-restrictionist arguments [on immigration] developed by Jews were typically couched in terms of universalist humanitarian ideals; as part of this universalizing effort, [non-Jews] from old-line Protestant families were recruited to act as window dressing for their efforts, and Jewish groups such as the AJCommittee funded pro-immigration groups composed of non-Jews (Neuringer 1971, 92).

It’s an old technique, arguably present (see alsohere) from the origins of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. The sad thing is that people who should know better continue to be deceived.

(6) With Kagan on Supreme Court, there would be three Jews and no White Protestants

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 14.04.2010 12:50 AM

Kevin MacDonald: Hype for Elena Kagan—Round Two

April 11th, 2010

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/

Kevin MacDonald: The last time we went through the Supreme Court nomination process, there was a veritable groundswell of hyperbole for Elena Kagan — so much so that I couldn’t resist writing about it here. The theme is ethnic networking. How else explain the fact that someone with a completely undistinguished scholarly record not only got tenure at the University of Chicago but was appointed dean of Harvard Law School?

She had exactly two publications in law review journals when she got tenure and has done very little since. A record like that would be a tough sell for tenure even in the nether regions of academia, never mind the most elite schools in the land. But now her lack of publications is seen by her supporters as an asset: She has no embarrassing paper trail on controversial issues.

Once again, the same people are hyping Kagan as absolutely brilliant. In a recent Huffington Post article (”Elena Kagan Emerging As Supreme Court Front-Runner“), Charles Fried says, “She is a supremely intelligent person, really one of the most intelligent people I have encountered, and I have met a lot of them, as one does in this business. She is very adroit politically. … She has quite a strong personality and a winning personality. I think she’s an effective, powerful person and a very, very intelligent person, and a very hardworking and serious person.” Presumably she can also walk on water.

Fried also praised Kagan effusively in the earlier round, along with Laurence Tribe, another Jewish Harvard Law professor. As I noted, “Kagan wasappointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan covered for Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar’s book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal.

The religion/ethnicity issue rears its head only slightly: “There has been some superficial concern over Kagan’s religion — not because she’s Jewish but because without Stevens there will be no Protestants on the court.” And Kagan would be the first open homosexual on the court. (Actually, it’s surprising we aren’t hearing more about this, given how controversial sexual orientation and issues like homosexual marriage are these days.) But not to worry: “These are distractions not speed bumps, strategists predict, if Obama chooses to go with Kagan.”

No White Protestants on the Supreme Court in a country that in living memory thought of itself as WASP at its very core. But, with Kagan, there would be three Jews and no White Protestants. Who exactly are these “strategists” and what is the goal of their strategizing?

The really amazing thing is that Kagan is being framed as a conservative. But on the issues that really count — issues related to multiculturalism, executive power, and free speech, there is every reason to suppose that Kagan is on the left: Her record strongly suggests that Kagan would be quite willing to fashion her legal arguments to attain her liberal/left policy goals, and that is exactly what her other writings show. Her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” (60 University of Chicago Law Review 873; available on Lexis/Nexis) indicates someone who is entirely on board with seeking ways to circumscribe free speech in the interests of multicultural virtue: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

She acknowledges that the Supreme Court is unlikely to alter its stance that speech based on viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment, but she sees that as subject to change with a different majority: The Supreme Court “will not in the foreseeable future” adopt the view that “all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution.” But in her view there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts.

It’s noteworthy that the organized Jewish community has a long record of opposing free speech related to multicultural issues not only in the US, but in a wide range of other countries. Kagan’s views fit well with the views of the organized Jewish community: Every effort should be made to restrict “hate speech” within the current legal context, but to do whatever possible to change the context so that such speech is outlawed.

Further, as the HuffPo article notes, “the praise from conservatives may sound damning to those who worry that the court is … too willing to accommodate the radical expansion of executive power. Kagan has been criticized by civil libertarians for her expansive stance on detainee policy.”

The promotion of a strong executive branch and lack of concern for civil liberties is exactly the problem: The worst excesses of government power in the last century have come from the left. Knowing that Kagan advocates a powerful central government is hardly reassuring.

The picture that emerges is that of someone who would have no hesitation to expand the power of the federal government to end First Amendment freedoms and squelch any hope that a White racialist movement could achieve real power. Those ideas are entirely within the Jewish mainstream.

In summary, Kagan “sees her job as a legal scholar to find a way to ensure that these goals are achieved while paying lip service to the legal tradition of the First Amendment.” And in the long run, she would just love it if the First Amendment would be jettisoned entirely.

So the hype for Kagan is dishonest on two counts: First, there is no evidence whatever that she is brilliant; all the evidence is that she has achieved far more in the academic world and in government than she deserves based on her actual performance. Second, she is inaccurately presented as a conservative. Her meager paper trail of academic writing clearly indicates that she would be a staunch warrior on the side of the multicultural left on critical issues like free speech.

And despite all the hyperbole from “conservatives” like Charles Fried, I suspect the people who are promoting her are well aware of that fact.

(7) Gaza economy reviving because of tunnels

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date: 15.04.2010 05:19 PM

Hamas has done well to survive but it is threatened by rivalry among Islamists

The Gaza Strip: Hamas hangs on

The Economist

Mar 31st 2010

http://www.economist.com/world/middle-east/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15824034

AFTER four gruelling years under siege, the Gazans—and the Islamist movement, Hamas, that governs them—are still managing against the odds to survive. Some even prosper. The tunnels that snake under Gaza's border with Egypt have multiplied so fast that supply sometimes exceeds demand. So stiff is commercial competition that tunnel-diggers complain that their work is no longer profitable. As a British parliamentary report recently noted, Israel officially allows Gaza to import only 73 of more than 4,000 items that are available in the strip. The rest is home-made—or acquired illicitly.

For instance, cement, which cost 300 Israeli shekels ($80) a sack two years ago, has dropped almost tenfold in price, precipitating a spate of building for the first time since Israel's attack a year ago reduced 4,000 houses to ruins. And eyewitnesses say that flashy 4x4 vehicles can actually drive through tunnels built from shipping containers.

Israel's siege still causes misery. Yet some economists say the strip is growing faster than the West Bank run by Hamas's rival Palestinian Authority (PA), albeit from a far lower base. The petrol pumped into Gaza by underground pipes and hoses from Egypt costs a third of what it does in Ramallah, the Palestinians' West Bank capital, where Israel supplies it. Free health care is more widely available in Gaza. Imports travel faster through the tunnels than via Israel's thickets of bureaucracy. The web of Israeli checkpoints that still impedes Palestinian movements and commerce on the West Bank is absent in Gaza.

As well as lower prices, Gazans benefit from civil-service payrolls. Several outfits pump cash into the strip's economy: the local Hamas government; the UN, which employs 10,000 Gazans; and Salam Fayyad's West Bank government, which is the largest employer of all. Payments to Hamas and its connected tunnel-operators boost the economy too. A car-dealer bringing in a new Hyundai saloon through the tunnels stands to make a profit of $13,000.

Above ground things look better, too. In the 14 months since the war ended, Hamas has swept up much of the wreckage. The Islamic University, bombed by Israel's aircraft, sparkles again. New cafés have opened across Gaza City. Power cuts dog Gazan life, but Hamas profits from the taxes it collects on the fuel that powers a noisy surfeit of generators. America recently imposed sanctions on the main Hamas-owned bank, but the informal hawala banking system that straddles the border keeps the strip solvent.

Whereas Gaza was once plugged into Western economies, the siege has forced it to find other financial moorings. So confident is Hamas that it can survive without the PA's banking system that it has just, for the first time, sent its police to raid a bank that had obeyed a PA order preventing a Hamas-run charity from having access to deposits.

All the same, Hamas's political isolation hurts. Egypt is frustrated by Hamas's refusal to let Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his Fatah party resume control over Gaza. Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, fears that the Islamist influence of Hamas may seep over the border into his own country. So he has severed ties with Hamas, barred its senior officials from travelling in or out of the territory, and hampers foreign aid from Iran and other sympathisers.

The Egyptian government has also ordered an underground barrier to be built along the border with Gaza, to block the tunnels. Mr Mubarak ignores Hamas's protests that it has no interest in weakening Egypt's national security and that it has avoided getting tied up with Egypt's Islamist opposition, principally the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas was originally a branch.

Meanwhile, Gaza's other neighbour, Israel, still launches incursions to enforce a buffer-zone inside the narrow strip and to keep it locked down. And in an effort to isolate Gaza's rulers, Mr Abbas's PA, which is based in Ramallah, said it would attend international events, such as the recent Arab League summit in Libya, only on condition that Hamas is excluded.

Frustrated by their inability to break free of this stranglehold, Gaza's leaders are showing signs of shedding their stoic discipline, which has generally, since the war ended in January last year, stopped Hamas people from firing home-made rockets into Israel.

Hamas's arguments against a resumption of American-brokered negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are growing more vitriolic. The ceasefire with Israel may be fraying. A recent spate of rockets into Israel has punctured the calm, though Hamas's Gaza strongman, Mahmoud Zahar, condemned it.

The people launching the rockets appear to be a mixture of hardliners within Hamas and assorted Islamist radicals from other movements. Both of them think the Hamas governors in Gaza have gone soft. They have been angered by an apparent campaign by Israeli agents to assassinate Hamas people abroad, most notably Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January. Two weeks ago a rocket from Gaza killed a Thai worker in Israel; it was unclear who fired it. An attack on an Israeli border patrol by assailants on a motorbike is said to have borne the hallmarks of training in Afghanistan. Hamas's military wing, the Qassam Brigades, recently boasted it had killed two Israeli soldiers in Gaza. After months of quiet, Israel's leaders are again threatening war and shooting back. Daily UN security reports on the strip, that have had almost nothing to report for months, are now full of descriptions of Israeli incursions by tanks and excavators that churn up the fields in the buffer zone.

Meanwhile Hamas has redirected its energy inward, setting off turf wars for control of business in the strip. Whereas the Qassam Brigades once ruled the roost, Hamas's boorish interior minister, Fathi Hamad, now wants his own forces to do so. He has also issued his own decrees to enforce Islamist customs, for instance by banning Valentine's Day soirées and male hairdressers in female salons. Immigration officers overseen by Hamas inspect the bags of foreigners entering from Israel into Gaza; if they find whisky, a prized asset in the dry strip, they pour it into the sand.

Fratricide looms

Hamas's Islamist rivals try to impose their own local versions of Islamist rule. Jaljalat, a group whose name means "rolling thunder", has grabbed attention by claiming to be linked to al-Qaeda. It has also realigned itself with the Qassam Brigades in a joint struggle against Mr Hamad's interior-ministry forces. The prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas man, seems to be backing those who want to curb his unruly interior minister.

The ensuing power struggle has turned violent. Bombs have blown up the cars of senior police officers, of the mayor of Rafah, close to the border with Egypt, and of a Qassam Brigades leader, so far without their owners inside. A string of explosions have disturbed Mr Haniyeh's home district, Beach Camp. With signs of division in Hamas, Gazan clans who had gone quiet for the past year have resumed vendettas.

Hamas's success in keeping Gaza's economy and administration going testifies to its resilience. But old-timers speak of a familiar cycle. When Yasser Arafat returned to Gaza in 1994 to set up the Palestinian Authority, he brought a sense of order, security and hope. But his wayward henchmen began to spar over spoils, igniting feuds between rival security forces. Israel's counter-attack against the intifada (uprising) that broke out in 2000 pulverised the PA's security apparatus and punctured central authority. A year after Israel's assault on Gaza, some in the territory fear a similar cycle may soon ensue.