I agree it’s right to be skeptical. the lines are blurry, alliances shift.

Here’s the sniff test: if Hamas could take Fatah out in 6 days, why would any group think it wouldn’t be squashed by Hamas very rapidly? Well, I’d be on the phone to the Hamas leadership pretty damn quick if it were my “clan.”

On the other hand, if I headed a group that used to work together with Hamas as a sub-group so that, as we’ve discussed before, Hamas could distance itself from attacks that it instigated or wanted to happen, then chances are that I wouldn’t kidnap a British reporter without Hamas’s say-so. After all, they might not use me again if they needed me for contract attacks. They would, in fact, very possibly consider me an enemy and if they were as strong as it appears, I’d be very careful not to cross them.

Also, who benefits from a reporter’s kidnapping where the terms are millions of dollars and Islamic leaders in British jails? Does a small clan that does sub-contract work for Hamas thinks it needs to release a cleric from British prison? Does it think that it would keep the money without giving a serious cut to their bosses at Hamas? OR, is it very likely and possible that Hamas wanted this kidnapping in order to exert pressure on the British and neutralize them diplomatically to a certain degree while bringing them to the table for talks at a time when Hamas was being boycotted by everybody? If they set themselves up as the “only” group that could get the British reporter released, they’d also be the only available address and the British would never let a prominent citizen rot away.

haaretz.com/ha...

“Hamas used the Doghmush gunmen as contract killers against Fatah (in the murder of Mousa Arafat), for the launching of Qassam rockets against Israel while declaring it was adhering to a cease-fire and, of course, for the abduction of Gilad Shalit.”

the whole article is worth a read.

That has to be the most rhetorical question ever asked.