Talk:Hamas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why delete this

Top Hamas leaders, Khaled Mashal and Imad al-Alami, have either fled or been expelled from Syria. Mashal appeared briefly in Egypt before going into hiding. al-Alami appears to have gone to Iran. Syria denies that the two where expelled. (end of article)

Not infrequently we read in the NYT that the United States is pressuring Syria to take measures against Hamas. This may be a response to that pressure. An Syrian source states that the two (quoting article) "should find safer territory, and Alami reportedly went to Iran while Mashal surfaced briefly in Cairo and then disappeared. Syria has officially denied it kicked out Mashal and other Hamas chiefs." Perhaps I have unfairly represented the matter. Help making the paragraph more accurate would be appreciated. Lance6Wins 13:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An unnamed Palestinian source quoted in Haaretz discussing Syrian government activities is rather speculative. The article even conflicts with earlier Haaretz articles that placed Khakled Mashal in Cairo one week prior to the assassination of Sheikh Khalil. These events are often distorted by disinformation from many sources. Elucidating motives of governments and groups is especially fraught with bias. Every effort should be made to keep Wikipedia NPOV and fact-based. There is no point in an encyclopedia of speculation. Let's leave that to the newspapers, editorial pages and foreign policy journals. Alberuni 14:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dont understand the "even conflicts with earlier Haaretz articles that placed Khakled Mashal in Cairo one week prior to the assassination of Sheikh Khalil". the second article does NOT say that Mashal went to Cairo after the assassination. Rather it seems to say that they moved after the suicide bombing on "August 31 that killed 16 people". Am I misreading the article referenced above? These two article appear to be consistent. I dont understand we should not regard them as fact? Do we have an conflicting information? Lance6Wins 16:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anon 209.135.35.83 wrote "Top Hamas leaders, Khaled Mashal and Imad al-Alami, have either fled or been expelled from Syria. Mashal appeared briefly in Egypt before going into hiding. al-Alami appears to have gone to Iran. Syria denies that the two where expelled. (end of article)" This was not even a factually accurate summary of the Haaretz article which itself was hearsay - so I deleted it. If you can add some factual substantiated information that adds to this article, please feel free to do so. Alberuni 17:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should Hamas be described as terrorist in Wikipedia?

The US and Israel claim Hamas is a terrorist organization that targets civilians for violence in pursuit of political goals. Hamas considers the Israeli occupation of Palestine to be terrorism and Hamas' para-military activities are a form of self-defense against a militarily superior foe. Hamas does not consider any Israelis to be civilians because they view all of Israel to be occupied Palestine, hence all Israelis are combatants. They also cite the militarized nature of Israeli society, universal conscription, and life-long reserve duty as reasons why no Israelis are civilians. Whether we agree with Israel or Hamas shouldn't be the issue. Referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization is POV and if it is done, the reference should be clear, i.e. "The US considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization" "Israeli spokemen claim they will hunt down and kill Hamas terrorists...." etc. Alberuni 16:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, terrorism is defined as violence targeting civilians indescriminately to achieve political goals. Whether a person is a civilian is decided at the personal level, i.e. it depends on whether a person engages in military activities ; it is not decided at the level of citizenship. There is some truth in the argument that Israel is a highly militarised society ; however, this fails to explain the rationale for killing children who are clearly civilians. So it is clearly NPOV to call Hamas terrorist. In general, I think the term terrorist should be avoided though (in all Wikipedia articles), used may be once in every article and when it is necessary. I think the term shouldn't be repeated over and over again, because it degrades the quality of articles, making them loaded with emotion, and the narrative reads more like a rant then.

However it would be very intersting to emphasise the justification which Hamas are offering for their terrorist acts. Do they actually explicitly reject terrorism? I know that they never carry out attacks outside Israel - is this the reason? - pir 17:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israelis certainly do not serve "life-long" military duty; in fact, a large majority of Israelis are not on active or reserve military duty. Place of residence does not make someone a "combatant", and "occupation" is not "terrorism" by any rational definition of the word. Many countries (not just the U.S.) consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization. See also Pir's comments. Jayjg 20:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like I wrote initially, it doesn't matter whether you agree with Islamic Hamas "terrorism" or Zionist Israeli "terrorism". The point is that describing a group as terrorist, if they do not describe themselves as such, reflects a POV. Should Wikipedia espouse one side's POV, both sides POVs, or a NPOV? If all Hamas members and supporters can be called terrorists because of specific terrorist acts conducted by individuals affiliated with that religious nationalist enterprise, then all Israelis and their supporters can be called terrorists because of specific terrorist acts conducted by individuals affiliated with that religious nationalist enterprise. Alberuni 21:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The edit in question describes attacks on civilians as terrorist, which they certainly are, regardless of what Hamas would like to imagine. If Hamas thinks red is blue, that does mean we need to "NPOV" all articles now using the word as "described by some as red, but described by Hamas as blue". Jayjg 00:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What consensus? There are 3 comments; yours, mine, and Pir's. Don't try to railroad your POV on that basis. The edit in question does not refer to specific attacks on civilians, it labels Hamas as terrorist and doesn't say alleged or according to Israel, the US or some other source. The source is Jayjg! The issue may seem clear to those with narrow POVs. If you were color-blind, you might be sure that red is green just as a Zionist might be sure that Hamas is terrorist organization. The IDF has been INTENTIONALLY killing scores of civilians EVERY DAY this week yet Zionists perceive IDF violence as justified self-defense. ("Oh sure, it's just collateral damage, unintentional massacre of civilians during a civilized high tech attack on a refugee camp because you know, the Israeli government can't be terrorist, they are the only democracy in the Middle East, etc etc etc" I don't need to hear any more of that regurgitated Zionist propaganda.). You should be intelligent enough to recognize that many people see Hamas violence in the same light that Zionists see IDF violence. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Is Wikipedia supposed to reflect an official or mainstream Israeli or American POV? Or is it going to be a place for objective NPOV information? Alberuni 00:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, pir and I agreed, anyway. Intentional attacks on civilians are terrorist, and this particular edit was about intentional attacks on civilians, not the organization as a whole. Jayjg 02:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"If all Hamas members and supporters can be called terrorists because of.." - but this is not about the members, this is about the organisation. Hamas as an organisation carries out suicide bombings against Israelis. Nobody disputes that.

When we have clearly established facts we can state those facts and we don't need to worry about what this or that political movement says. Objective facts cannot be relativised by political discourse - otherwise we end up with an Orwellian encyclopedia. It is an objective fact that Hamas targets civilians with suicide bombings ; therefore Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Whatever merits their justification may or may not have - it doesn't invalidate objective fact. It is therefore perfectly NPOV for us to state this objective fact.

This reminds me of a rather lengthy debate I had with Jayjg on whether the West Bank barrier should be in the category of walls. I was arguing like here, i.e. that it was an objective fact that a significant portion of the barrier were a wall, and that it could therefore be included in that category. Jayjg was arguing that this would be a NPOV violation because it would endorse one or the other side's view (even going as far as claiming that my reasoning had to be dismissed because I was "taking the Israeli side"!). [1]

I suggest we state that Hamas is a terrorist organisation once in the article, and then avoid this emotional term. - pir 00:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Hamas is going to be labelled a terrorist organization then Israel is also a terrorist organization and it should be mentioned prominently on the pages about Israel. Alberuni 00:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The Israeli government has quite clearly used violence against civilians on numerous occasions, in order to further political goals. Calling the Israeli government terrorist is IMO clearly NPOV. Just as it is perfectly NPOV to call the US government terrorist, or the government of the country where I live, or the Indian government, the Chinese government and many many others. But you need to distinguish between a country and a country's government here.

Unfortunately most people, including Wikipedians, are in denial of these facts, and I won't waste my energy trying to address this problem by editing Wikipedia articles. - pir 01:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pir, stop your ranting against the Jews in Israel. No one sensible believes that the Jews of Israel are out to murder innocent civilians. That's an anti-Zionist libel. You keep using the word "terrorism" in ways that have nothign to do with the dictionary, or even Wikipedia, definition of the term. You are just so full of rage against the Jews in Israel that you turn every article into a tirade against them. Your repeated diatribes are off-topic, and they are just being repeated over and ober. Please stick to the specific topic. If you have something specific to say about the phrasing in this article, then say it. Any other comments are off-topic for this Talk page. RK 01:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

RK, if your accusations made any sense, I'd be offended. However they make no sense, and everybody can read exactly what I wrote and see for themselves that there is not even a remote connection. - pir 02:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pir appears quite reasonable and is stating facts that are relevant to the article. You on the other hand seem easily offended by reasonable statements and make outrageous ad hominem accusations of "anti-Zionist libel" (what is that anyway? Zionism is a political movement deserving of criticism. How can it be libeled? It's not a religion, in case you forgot.). I believe that Israel has intentionally murdered thousands of civilians. If it wasn't intentional the IDF sure has selectively bad aim. They never seem to miss and accidently kill Israeli civilians. Maybe bad luck (or bad karma) just follows them around. Alberuni 01:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Zionism" doesn't even exist anymore. If there's one thing I've learned through the years, it's that anyone who uses the term "Zionist" is completely, 100% antagonistic towards Jews of all sorts. Zionism is not a political movement in any country. The entire point of the Zionist movement was to create a Jewish state. Zionism died in 1948.

I find it interesting that you claim "If Hamas is going to be labelled a terrorist organization then Israel is also a terrorist organization and it should be mentioned prominently on the pages about Israel." and provide zero evidence to support it. It's also not relevant.

This is not a negotiation, where we get to use the word "terrorist" on the Hamas page if you get to use it on the Israel page. This is a quest for truth, however trite and irrational that may be. Your rash demand that you get to call us terrorists is childish and ill-befits the professionality Wikipedia strives for. In any case, if you have a problem with the Israel page please keep it on the Israel page.

I will admit that I am biased. I also am not an expert on this subject, and as such I will not be editing the main page. Trying to be as NPOV as possible, I still think there are some subjects that have been left out. For one, the terrorism (or "guerrilla war," if that makes you happier) aspect of the organization has been glossed over. We've got the Hamas side of the story, and I'm not suggesting we remove it, but perhaps a little more from the other side of the fence. Also, I seem to recall that Hamas has negotiated cease-fires and other agreements with Israel in the past. Why is that not mentioned?

This article is actually fairly close to NPOV. It's not there yet, but with a little work it can be. I would rather have the "Hamas" side clean it up than "my" side, though.

--Khaim 20:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Khaim. While youre points are well made, the debate you are responding to happened 3 1/2 months ago. Since then two of the participants have been banned from Wikipedia for long periods, and one appears to have voluntarily left it. So the only one around is me. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely Israel officially considers Hamas, and all Palestinian (and Lebanese) paramilitaries, to be terrorist organisations not just because they target civilians but because they engage in violence at all, including armed resistance to foreign occupation not targeting civilians. Guerrilla attacks on armed soldiers in occupied land have also been described as "terrorist attacks" by Israeli governments in the past, and still are.

I don't think Hamas should be described as a terrorist organisation on Wikipedia, especially since it is a paramilitary/guerrilla group/resistance group fighting a foreign occupation, in contrast to groups like Al Qaeda which can't be said to be fighting an occupation (at least until Bush and Blair invaded Afghanistan--and especially--Iraq). I think we should instead refer to tactics that constitute "terrorism against civilians" or "war crimes", namely the campaign of suicide bombing against civilians in Israeli cities, as well as the murder of unarmed civilian residents of illegal colonial settlements in the occupied territories.

I agree that Israeli governments have also murdered many, many civilians. If you really get into this, almost every wartime head of state or guerrilla leader is a war criminal.-Kingal86 23:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it would be interesting to see if Israel has an "official" list of groups it considers terrorist, and what groups are on that list. Killing civilians and terrorism are not the same thing; rather, it is the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes that makes something terrorist. Jayjg 23:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kingal86, it's not Wikipedia that's calling Hamas a terrorist group. The article says Hamas is: "regarded by some as a militant organization and by others as a terrorist group. The United States, Canada, Israel and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization." Those sentences are factually correct.

As for the comment that al-Qaeda can't be said to be fighting an occupation, they came into existence (in a slightly different form) to resist the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; and went on to fight what they saw as the American occupation of Saudi Arabia following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Their attack on the World Trade Center was part of their effort to get American troops out of the Middle East, an effort which has intensified with the American invasion of Iraq.

Just because resistance to perceived occupation is a goal doesn't mean a group can't be called a terrorist group. The fundamental issue in deciding whether an action is "terrorist" is whether civilians are deliberately targeted by a non-governmental group in the absence of rules of engagement and a declaration of war. In the case of Hamas, also bear in mind that it's fighting its own government (the Palestinian Authority) as well as the Israeli government and people.

Wikipedia's job is to report what is being said out there, in books, newspapers and by interested groups and goverments. We should report it fairly and accurately without letting our own views intervene. Often it will be a matter of saying: X is regarded by some as a guerrilla group and by others as a terrorist organization." If that's the truth, why not just leave it at that? Slim 23:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Labelling an organization a 'terrorist' group has profound implications and is misleading, especially in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks by a group that is a 'terrorist' organization. Israel may consider Hamas as 'terrorists' but that doesn’t necessarily mean it's true. Israel has political gains by doing so in that it will closely relate Hamas to Al-Qaeda, thus creating an aura of false sympathy to Israel and it will cleverly create an 'evil' image for Hamas too. Yes, suicide bombings are a factor, but one just has to look at the number of civilian deaths from both sides: Palestinian civilian deaths are almost double the number of Israeli deaths; A coincidence? I think not.So if somebody is willing to name an organization--which is considered to be a resistance group of an unlawful invasion by many countries--a terrorist organization, just on the basis of attacks on civilians and civilian deaths, then by ALL means, Israel and the Zionist factors in it's government are also terrorists. If you are to disagree with fact and say Israel is not 'terrorist', then Hamas is also NOT a terrorist organization.

Did you read the article? It doesn't label Hamas a terrorist organization, it just points out who does, which includes far more than Israel (e.g. United States, European Union, Canada, etc.). Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the dictionary:

Terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear intimidation.

see also [2] and [3]. Hamas definitely uses violence against civilians to attain it's goals and thus it is a terrorist organization. Labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization isn't political, it is merely stating facts.--Yunis 11:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of new to this, so work with me here as I'm still figuring things out (with the utmost caution). I agree that a distinction should be made between an organization Italic textbeing Italic text and Italic textcommitingItalic text acts of terror, although generally they go hand in hand. When an organization, like Hamas, is responsible for deliberately targeting civilians for political gain, it commits acts of terrorism. When deciding, then, whether or not an organization deserves the label "terrorist," I believe the criterium should be whether or not that organization has in place an overt (or covert) policy espousing the use of terrorist tactics. Clearly, if it is Hamas' policy to deliberately target civilians in order to achieve political aims, as is evident in numerous quotes taken from Hamas leaders in the territories and abroad, as well as Hamas' actions during the course of the Al Aqsa Intifada, then it is both appropriate and NPOV in the context of the article to describe Hamas as "terrorist."-- Mpardo 11:07, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Yunis and Mpardo above; if the tactics are to blow up civlians, then the organization is terrorist; therefore Hamas is terrorist, regardless of whether or not their goals are justifiable. Gzuckier 14:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then surely the Israeli occupation forces and security forces (Israel Defence Forces, Air Force, Mossad, etc.) and Jewish colonial settler militias should be described as terrorist regardless of their aims (supposedly defending Israel, naturally) because of their organisations' tactics of deliberately shooting, running over and blowing up civilians. And pretty much every government, army and paramilitary involved in warfare should be charactetised terrorist organisations for that matter. Kingal86 12:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're back Kingal. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm back. Kingal86 14:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The "terrorist" label is far too contentious, loaded and poorly defined for a truly NPOV encyclopedia to use. List the organization's activities and the reader can make up their own mind. By all means include whether or not countries or human rights organizations consider them terrorists, however. --Jamieli 12:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There can never be consensus reached regarding this issue. Rather than arguing over this for another year, perhaps we can look at this from a logical viewpoint. Why don't we just describe Hamas as "a terrorist organization in the eyes of the US Britain and Israel, and as a resistance movement to...." No semblance of NPOV can be maintained without defining Hamas as both terrorist and resistant. Both terms are valid descriptions, provided they are framed in the context of who believes which terms. NPOV is maintained if people are presented with both sides of the spectrum of beliefs. To call Hamas "terrorist" is reflective of an US/UK/Israel POV, while to call it solely "resistance" that would only show the other POV.

--jonasaurus 23:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"militant group" is fairly NPOV. --Jamieli 21:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are we even asking this question? Hamas is clearly a terrorist group; if going about blowing up children to further your political goals isn't terrorist, then I don't know what is. Whether Hamas itself rejects the label or not is irrelevant; if Michael Jordan were to claim he was not black, would the article on him suddenly be POV for acknowledging the obvious facts? Rogue 9

A non-partisan plea for clear definitions of terms 

Encyclopedia articles should be objective. This is often difficult to accomplish but vital to attempt. One very practical means of promoting greater objectivity is to employ clear and explicitly verifiable definitions. The definition of "terrorism" is "a strategy that deliberately targets civilians". The term "terrorism" was employed in this sense by the late 19th century anarchists. Their avowed aim was to terrorize the public and thus pressure leaders; hence the term.

Admittedly, this definition depends on the intention of the perpetrator. Was he deliberately aiming at the civilian with the intent of harming him? Or did the civilian just get in the way? Intentions are not always obvious, but sometimes they are. If a group of children or old people are killed and if the perpetrators publicly announce their intent, then it is fair and accurate to describe that act as "terrorist" and the perpetrators as "terrorists". So, for example, the Breslan massacre could be correctly described as terrorist. I believe there to be consensus on this from all quarters, including from many of the perpetrators.

Heinous as the act may be, the definition of the term has a perfectly neutral and descriptive function. Some may feel that the term "brain-damaged" is perjorative; but for a physician assessing injuries it is simply a crucial fact. Similarly with "terrorist". The word in itself does not necessarily impute a value judgement. Some (though I would not count myself among them) might argue the justifiabilty of such tactics for a greater good.

Sometimes military action is taken with willful disregard for civilian casualties. Such actions may be comparably reprehensible. If the target is military and massive "collateral damage" was only a secondary effect, it could still be that that action should rank as a war crime. But it would not be terrorism. That is not to say it shouldn't be roundly condemned and vigorously opposed; but it is a different beast. Only when we are clear about the facts do we have a sound basis for forming ethical judgements.

So, to answer the question: "Is Hamas (or the IDF) a terrorist organization?" I ask the question: "Does Hamas (or the IDF) deliberately target civilians?". Please be honest amongst yourselves. If there's any alternative to war in this world, surely it's reasoned debate in a context of mutual respect. --Charley

It's really not that complicated. The issue is whether a particular organization actually claims the dictionary definition of terrorist tactics (i.e. targetting civilains for political purposes) as its own policy. One may claim that the US and Israel deliberately target civilians or that their soldiers do but the U.S. and Israel officially deny this. Hamas on the other hand would presumably agree that it targets people who by almost universal convention are civilians.Thus, they may reject the label of 'terrorist' but they do not reject the policies that define one as a terrorist. Unless you want to debate the meaning of 'civilian' than the labelling of Hamas as a 'terrorist organization' is appropriate becasue this is part of their organizational character, i.e. terrorism is part of their official doctrine. -elanb

A response to non-partisan plea for defintion of the term "Terrorist": A terrorist is an agent who exchanges his resource endowment (e.g. strategists, organisers, suicide bombers, safe houses) for political influence using an exchange vector of attacks against non-military or military-industrial targets. This is the definition used by defence economists and defence analysists. Hence, has Hamas been thusfar, according to this definition, a terrorist group? Yes. But that does not mean it *is* one now. Perhaps (and the rational world can only hope) Hamas' new use of politics as their chief weapon, rather than C4, shall bring a change that we have seen in Northern Island, where the militant wing of the IRA/Sinn Fein (i.e. the latter consituent) has been recently disbanded. I would contend that, until further events show otherwise, wikipedia allows Hamas 2.0 to be an entity of a political rather than terrorist nature. BlindPrometheus 0221 UTC, 27/01/2006

Israeli support/encouragement

I'm bothered by this statement:

"Many experts agree that while Israel never supported Hamas directly, it did encourage Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat."

Firstly, what is the difference between "support directly" and "encourage"? If there is one, it should be made explicit.

Secondly, there isn't actually a consensus of "experts" here, is there? It's not hard to find allegations that Israel supported Hamas in the 1980s.

—Ashley Y 11:18, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

OK, unless there's an objection, I'm going to change it to ": indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat". —Ashley Y 03:13, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Although otherwise biased, this page mentions many credible sources for it's Hamas/Israel connection allegiations. www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_watson_012703_hamas.html]

Dubious position

The Israeli Defence Forces has a modern army with tanks and an air force with planes, while the Palestinians do not. Suicide bombers therefore view themselves as the low technology equivalent of smart bombs, guided missiles and other high-technology weapons employed by Israel against the Palestinians. -- This is a POV of HAMAS and their apologists, and WP should not take it without qualification. If someone insists on this text be included, we'd have to add that high-tech weapons are used to minimize civilian casualties while suicide bombers aim to maximize civilian casualties, and why the appearance of Qassam rockets didn't stop terrorism against Israeli civilians, only made it worse. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is correct to say that Hamas intentionally use suicide bombing to maximise the deaths of innocent civilians. However, high-tech weapons have nothing to do with reducing civilian casualties. High-tech weapons - like every organisation, both state and non-state, resorting to armed conflict in history - have only one aim; to maximise the extermination of one's enemy. Armed conflict has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. One need only look at how the ICC has been a failure due to many states not effectively supporting the court while others have opposed it. As military technology increases, so do civillian deaths. Today an estimated 90% of deaths in armed conflict are civilians; far greater than before. The use of high-tech weapons in Afghanistan are an example. While Afghan civilians were not understood as the enemy they suffered excessive casualties nonetheless.[4]

               Italic textI would have to seriously question your use of the word "excesive."

Excessive compared to what?

I think an argument can be made that high-tech advances in weaponry are intended to ensure that the targets are hit, and non-targets are not hit. This maximizes the effectiveness of the weapon, and may have the side-effect of minimizing collatoral damage. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think honestly that some reference to the disparity in military capability should be made, explaining the Hamas military tactics. And if the suicide bombers indeed "view themselves as the low technology equivalent of smart bombs, guided missiles" than I don't think it constitutes POV to put that forward, when clearly marked as their opinion. I don't know where this piece of text was originally located, but could someone please reinsert it? Also, if I were more confident in writing encyclopedic articles in English (not my language), I would perhaps try to reorganize the article as well. It seems not very structured or coherent in places (perhaps due to all the editing by competing authors). Also it does not very well explain the political ideology of Hamas. It does not mention or describe their "convenant" at all, which is a shame. Even for anti-Hamas people: know thy enemy... 80.126.3.128 02:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, there's a whole section describing their "covenant". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I misread that part, sorry. But it's a very interpretative part.

What do you mean "interpretive"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to state that suicide bombers are Hamas' equivalent of smart missiles--at least in Hamas' opinion, and that guerrilla warfare is a necessary tactic in an asymetrical war against the technologically-advanced Israeli security forces. However the apparent claim by Hamas that it is nescessary to target Israeli civilians in buses or resturants, or even civilian colonial settlers is flawed. It is perfectly possible for a suicide bomber to ensure they blow themselves up near a military or security forces target. Many of the Hezbullah suicide bombings in Lebanon targeted Israeli occupation soldiers and military bases. Hamas could probably target the softer (but still non-civilian) target of security forces personnel such as armed soldiers or armed counter-terrorist police on patrol relatively easy since Israel and the occupied territories are full of Israeli soldiers and police officers. Therefore Hamas obviously chooses to target the Israeli civilian population, although it tries to justify this tactic with flawed arguments about the militarisation of Israeli society that could easily be used against Palestinian society by the Israeli government. Kingal86 12:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No argument from me until you get to the question of settlers. Even there, if you only take it as far as saying it is "unnecessary" I would agree. However (IANAL), I think that there are very real questions whether the settlers qualify as non-combattants under the Geneva Conventions. Just as a medic who carries a weapon permanently loses his noncombattant status in war, so I would think that a civillian who is participating in an illegal population transfer would also lose these protections. Natureally such distinctions would not apply to residents withing the Green Line, and there can be no justification to bombing busses in Jerusalem, cafe's in Haifa, and the like. But I would rather not see Wikipedia take any position on whether settlers count as civilians for the purposes of defining terrorism. Einhverfr.

"Assassinated by the Israelis"

That line, appearing at the very start of the article, seems unnecessary and a bit slanty. What if it were replaced by "later assassinated", "assassinated in 2004", or "1937-2004"? I don't know how those bracket-notes are handled in other articles about other assassinated people, but I just get the feeling that it's not worth specifying Israelis as assassins, given that the man in question is only being mentioned in passing.

I don't want to edit this page myself because it's so controversial, but I wonder if that change is worth making.

There are several "assassinated by Israelis" in the article, and I believe they should stay, for the sake of clarity. It's not a NPOV concern because the Israelis did indeed do that, and saying so makes it clear beyond doubt that the assassination was carried out by Israel, and not Hamas itself, other Palestenian movements or someone else - if you change it to "assasinated in 2004", for example, that is no longer clear. Solver

The Hamas logo

FYI, I am posting an RFC regarding the logo edit war and a similar one in Fatah#The Fatah logo. We could keep them unified at Talk:Fatah ot separate... My point is, encyclopedia's goal is to educate by exposing cold facts and the description of the logo works towards this goal. If you prefer to supress the description, please explain your reasoning. Also, it would be useful if Arabic language speakers could translate the Arabic text for the rest of us. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The logo is there for all readers to see for themselves. Inserting propagandist snipes insinuating at territorial ambitions is blatant POV pushing. The very state of Israel's flag is the star of David between two blue stripes representing Jewish rule between the Nile and the Euphrates, something which may be construed as a very damning picture of territorial ambition. Nevertheless, because of biblical and religious associations of Eretz Israel and the Promised Land, I wouldn't go in to the Israel article trying to insert innuendoes about the "true meaning" of the flag. Just because the Fatah and Hamas logos shows historic Palestine does not imply there's some sinister meaning to it all. Just leave the logs be and the readers can make what they will of them, without these little "hints." --AladdinSE 13:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, calm down. The problem is that you are either unfamiliar with Hamas, or that you are seriously misrepresenting it. They have publicly stated that their goal is to rule over all of the State of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. You have no right to falsify their own beliefs. RK

I am disturbed by your apparent acceptance of an attack on the Jewish people that has often been used to justify and incite anti-Semitism. You write that "The very state of Israel's flag is the star of David between two blue stripes representing Jewish rule between the Nile and the Euphrates, something which may be construed as a very damning picture of territorial ambition." That anti-Jewish myth has been debunked time and again. The flag of the State of Israel is simply showing a Star of David on a tallit, the traditional Jewish prayer shawl! In fact, the overwhelming, vast majority of the people who designed and used this flag (the early political Zionists), explicitly denied that they had any such goals. Aladdin, falling for such proven myths can only tend to reduce your credibility. See the article on the Flag of Israel for more information. RK 15:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I was perfectly calm, and didn't even use a single exclamation mark (unlike yourself). Where do you think the Jewish Prayer shawl's inspiration came from? From the notion of Eretz Israel and the Promised Land, of course. It has not been debunked nor is it an implicit anti-Semitic attack. Only the other day I was watching the BBC world service news on TV and they described the Israeli flag in this manner without any anti-Semitic or territorial overtones. What I am saying is, it doesn't matter. Historical and religious notions do not necessarily translate into bona-fide territorial ambitions. Yes, Hamas and other factions do not recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel, although they have indicated several times that they are prepared to accept it as a fact. So what? There are people sitting in the Knesset right now that actually advocate the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from Israel and the occupied territories and beyond. These "descriptions" of logos and emblems and the like are poorly disguised insinuations. Why can't we just allow the readers to make what they will of what they see in the graphic? --AladdinSE 15:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the notion that the Jewish prayer shawl stripes come from the idea of the Nile to the Euphrates? The BBC world service is rather notorious for its factual inaccuracies and rather anti-Israel view when it comes to the Middle East. In any event, it's simply an anti-Zionist myth; provide evidence that any of it is factual in any way. As for the caption, all pictures have captions describing their contents. And even if you wrongly think the implication is that Hamas wants to conquer Israel, that's hardly inaccurate, is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That "Hamas wants to conquer Israel" is of course explicitly stated as one of the ideological starting points in its charter: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, May Allah Pity his Soul). [5] --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 19:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly right, it wants an Islamic state in all of "historical Palestine" including the PA, and this is stated in the article and the covenant is linked. I agree to a caption since the reference to "entire state of Israel" has been altered. Nevertheless, since you are so interested in describing the facts, those territories happened to be Israeli occupied, not some harmless independent states. As for the prayer shawl, it is neither a proven fact nor a simple anti-Semitic myth. Due to it's highly politicized nature I would never countenance the use of this dispute to insinuate hints of territorial ambitions into the caption of the flag of Israel. That was my point. --AladdinSE 07:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly because it's one hell of a stretch to insinuate territorial ambitions into the Israeli flag. Whereas having a map of somebody else's country on your flag is an unusual characteristic; and pointing that unique feature out in a NPOV manner to readers who might not have noticed for themselves or might be familiar with the outlines of modern Israel, the West Bank, and historic Israel/Palestine does nto in itself constitute POVness. Or are there lots of countries whose flags feature somebody else's country on them that I have missed? Gzuckier 17:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The prayer shawl is not a "simple anti-Semitic myth"; rather it is something you made up yourself, not even the propagandists who claim the flag represents that claim the tallit does as well. You'd be more credible if you weren't making things up, and contributing to the spread of silly myths.[6] Oh, and if Daniel Pipes isn't good enough for you, would you believe it if Israel Shahak, one the best known critics of Zionism, Judaism, and "Zionist expansionism", said it? "A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit)."[7] Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And in cases where the prayer shawl has two black stripes rather than two blue ones, that must symbolize Jewish rule of the oil fields! Gzuckier 17:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course, black stripes are traditional amongst Ashkenazi Jews; I doubt you would have found a tallit with blue stripes before the 20th century. And, of course, white stripes are traditional amongst Sephardi Jews; no doubt those indicate Jewish rule of the Arctic to the Antarctic as well, thus indicating Jewish ambitions to control the whole world. Which, of course, they have already achieved, via the Elders of Zion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, JayJG, some Zionists are so selfish. I have smaller needs. "Oh, General, the world is a big place. Thank goodness, my needs are small...As it turns out, I have this affinity for beachfront property...Australia." (Superman II, Lex Luthor to General Zod)

Rule the whole world? A mere piker's ambition. "The ultimate goal of the Jews ... after conquering the globe ... is to extract from the hands of the Lord many stars and galaxies". -Ali Baqeri, 'researcher' of the Protocols, in Sobh (a radical Islamic monthly) in 1999. Gzuckier 19:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're quite finished with your jolly repartee, we might perhaps return to the subject at hand, the Hamas emblem/logo. You know full well that this whole affair started because someone started inserting references to "the entire state of Israel" in a deliberate and nakedly POV attempt to subvert a neutral caption into a political agenda. For the last time, I do not believe in the Nile to the Euphrates notion, and using it to subvert the Israeli Flag caption is an example of what not to do; it is just as silly as what is being attempted here. I think a caption that does not attempt to tell readers what they are seeing is the most neutral option, but like I have said before, I am perfectly willing to acquiesce to a "descriptive" caption as long as it's NPOV and all facts are mentioned. Somehow you insist on the bombs and the guns but if someone mentions the fact that the Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza, the whole world falls apart. There are territories that have not been annexed, their occupied status is a classification used by the United Nations and overwhelmingly in the world. Similarly, to distinguish Palestinian links (Israeli Arabs, refugees etc) to historic Palestine, it's important to say "...shows the map of what is now Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza." --AladdinSE 21:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but I think the jolly repartee was making more sense. Gzuckier 05:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your earlier claims regarding the flag, the BBC, etc., and edits to the Flag of Israel article indicate otherwise. As far as the logo description goes, I see pictures of guns and hand grenades; I don't see a picture of "occupation". The description should be accurate and factual, and not describe things which are not actually in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They indicate no such thing. The fact that the controversy is out there is just the way it is, and pretending that there is no controversy is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. What's actually in it includes the West bank and Gaza, which are occupied by Israel, you can't get anymore factual than that. --AladdinSE 21:44, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't just state there was a controversy, you supported it, and even made up claims supporting it. As for the logo, it includes Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip; that is simple fact. However, the legal status of those territories is a political argument. Describe the logo, not your politics. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it would be far more advantageous to certain positions to paint rival sides as anti-Semitic and conspiracy theorists, but this is simply not the case. Allowing both sides to present points in an encyclopedia is not supporting any one side. My edits will prove I maintained all Zionist objections, where other editors deleted and blatantly ridiculed the other side in a highly non-encyclopedic manner. The legal status of the territories will be determined by the outcome of peace negotiations, the Israeli military occupation is a fact, and describing it as such is factual and not politics. Hiding it is politics. --AladdinSE 22:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You claimed the myth was true, you made up some BBC source for it, and you even invented some argument that that's what the stripe on the tallit mean as well, and inserted it into an article; I'm still waiting for a source on that. And I haven't claimed you were anti-Semitic, I merely note that you swallowed some transparent Arab myth-making and then repeated it as fact. As for the logo, describing the occupation is appropriate where it is relevant, but trying to drop it into every article you can on the flimsiest of pretexts is politicking. There is no picture of "occupation" in the logo, there's just a picture of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I claimed no such thing, and I made up no source. I specifically said I heard it mentioned as a controversy on the news, you cannot cite something like that anyway, nor are you required to, that was a Talk discussion and not an article edit. I claimed nothing was true, that is patently false. Stating the obvious that some people do believe it though, is npov. I also maintained Zionist denials and claims of anti-Semitism, as well as all references to the opposing factions' account of how the design came about. I swallowed nothing, and personally agree that is is a red herring and entirely counterproductive to the peace process. I will not repeat myself on this matter. I have not "described the occupation" in the logo. I only stated it. Describing is enumerating attributes. Israel is a sovereign nation. You can't just follow that with naked "West Bank" and "Gaza" which are not sovereign, it's a simple statement of fact to mention that Israel occupies them. While this dispute is in progress I will limit to one revert daily, as far at the caption is concerned, instead of the allowed maximum, as per advice. --AladdinSE 22:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Look at your edit of Flag of Israel, which inserted a false claim about some sort of controversy regarding the origins of the stripes on the tallit. As for "West Bank" and "Gaza", whether or not they are occupied is a political and legal opinion, and one that is disputed at that. Is it now your contention that every single mention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in every single article on Wikipedia must also mention that they are "Occupied" as well? Should the articles themselves be renamed to reflect that? In any event, the logo doesn't demonstrate occupation, it merely shows a territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Double sigh. I will not repeat myself on that point; refer to my Talk above. The occupation is so overwhelmingly denounced around the world. You can try to make it out to be "in dispute" until you're blue in the face. The world has made itself clear on that point, --AladdinSE 07:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You have failed to answer rather simple questions; "Is it now your contention that every single mention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in every single article on Wikipedia must also mention that they are "Occupied" as well? Should the articles themselves be renamed to reflect that? " Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is because you failed, until just now, to ask a simple question without a whole lot of off topic digression. The answer is no. Only where the context requires it, such as the emblem of a militant insurgent group where Israel is mentioned a s a state and the territories are illogically not mentioned as Israeli-occupied.--AladdinSE 05:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's easy to solve; remove the reference to Israel as a State. It makes the description shorter too, which is a bonus. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No argument there, any shortening would be welcome. Very well, I concede the occupied label matter. I think it is more accurate and appropriate in this instance that the territories be labeled as occupied in the caption, but am willing to live with this formulation. --AladdinSE 21:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

just my 2 cents but the vast majority of this thread in the talk seems so tainted with prejudice from either anti-semitism or anti-palestinian sentiment that I wonder whether any of it can be considered NPOV and usefull. It looks to me as a statement of fact that Hamas as territorial ambitions that are expansionist and that the israeli flag has nothing whatsoever to do with that ambition, but perhaps I am the one who is mistaken ?? Hurkummer

More arms caption

Right now, the coat of arms caption says "a map of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip". This is misleading, as the boundaries between these three things are not demarcated. It's really not a map of three things.

Clearly what is shown is the outline of one single entity. I propose referring to that as "Palestine" or possibly "historic Palestine", as that is the most common single name for that particular region of land.

We should also ask ourselves: what is the intent of the drawing? What is it supposed to be? Clearly whoever designed it did not mean any "State of Israel", since I assume Hamas does not even recognise such an entity. The current description suggests that the artist intended to depict "the State of Israel" etc., which clearly isn't the case. They intended to represnt what they call "Palestine" regardless of how you or I may feel about what that word means. —Ashley Y 23:14, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Well, Palestine is a problem, since there is no clear understanding of the word, and it certainly isn't an existing entity either. Does Palestine mean just the West Bank and Gaza Strip? For many it does. Does it mean that plus Israel? That's what Hamas means when they say it. Does it mean that plus Jordan? That's what it meant when the British captured it. Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip is the only accurate way of describing that particular territory, which, in reality, represents Hamas' territorial ambitions, not Palestine. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about "the land they claim as Palestine"? —Ashley Y 00:04, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I'd vote for "historical Palestine" as it seems to me to be less POV, and I guess it's accurate. Gzuckier 05:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's not introduce more complexity by opening that can of worms. Palestine (region) at various times included (or not) Trans-Jordan, Gaza, parts of the Negev, Lebanon, Syria, etc. The map of Israel GS WB is a neutral description of the image on this coat of arms (BTW, thanks for finding the exact term!!), especially in the light of Hamas' stated goal to establish Islamist khalifat/jamahiriyya there. Of course "Hamas does not even recognise such an entity" as the State of Israel, but why should a serious encyclopedia adopt views of genocidal extremists? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it's not a map of Israel GS WB, except incidentally and imperfectly (since Gaza and the WB are not marked). It is specifically a map of the land they claim as Palestine. —Ashley Y 07:44, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

"The land they claim as Palestine" is an undefined region (like the Midwest), while "the map of modern SoI GS WB" is a more precise description of the image. They do not need to separate those areas (as you know, the permanent borders are still subject to negotiations) because they want it all. Another benefit of explicit wording, it lists what they intend to supersede, a very inmportant point IMO. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the land they claim as Palestine is really undefined (and I'm not sure that's true), then so is the map, and in that case the "SoI GS WB" description would actually be inaccurate. We should refer to what the artist intended to portray, and that's clearly the land they claim as Palestine. If that claim is as you say undefined, and it occasionally contains some odd sliver of land in the margin, then so does the map in the mind of the artist regardless of whether it's part of "SoI GS WB". —Ashley Y 08:18, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

It's a matter of authority. The authority on what an image is supposed to portray is the artist. If you ask the artist what that thing at the top is supposed to be, they'll say it's a map of Palestine. Now, of course their use of the word "Palestine" is controversial, so it should be appropriately qualified. But their intent is quite clear, and that's what we should mention as straightforwardly as possible.

I can't see any reasonable way of describing a symbolic drawing such as this except in terms of what the artist intended. —Ashley Y 08:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I have the utmost respect to the authority of an artist. As long as your proposed text reflects that Hamas claims the territory of modern Israel, WB and GS, I am on your side. I'm sure you know, there's been never been a country called "Palestine" and historically the region's borders were fluid. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This may be too long for a caption, but perhaps is a way to describe the emblem fully and neutrally: The Hamas emblem consists of the Dome of the Rock, two crossed swords, and two Palestinian flags embracing the Dome with the phrases, "There is no god but Allah", and "Mohammed is the messenger of Allah." At the top is a map encompassing the boundaries of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with "Palestine" written under the picture and a strip at the bottom stating "Islamic Resistance Movement-Hamas." --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 10:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

An alternative shorter version, though it doesn't describe everything: The Hamas emblem shows two crossed swords, the Dome of the Rock, and a map encompassing the boundaries of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with "Palestine" written under the picture. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 10:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it to "a map of the land they claim as Palestine (roughly, the present State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)". —Ashley Y 10:40, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I like your current version. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still like 'land they view as historic palestine' or some such, but not strongly enough to push for it, just strongly enough to mention it. Gzuckier 17:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm still playing Wiki catchup, but this seems like some good progress here. I am inclined to endorse: "The Hamas emblem shows two crossed swords, the Dome of the Rock, and a map of the land they claim as Palestine (roughly, the present State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)." caption, with reservations about why Israel is accorded its designation as a state, but the West Bank and Gaza are not accorded their designation as occupied by Israel. --AladdinSE 05:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Let's just have this discussion in one article, not two. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean? --AladdinSE 05:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Let's just discuss it here, not her and Talk:Fatah as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I was asked by Ashley Y, I think, at one point, how I thought a different wording (applied to both captions) sounded, and I answered accordingly. The dispute about both the Hamas and Fatah captions are very similar, and it's inevitable that references to both occur in the Talk. --AladdinSE 21:25, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to shorten "the present State of Israel" to "present Israel". I do think "State of" may make "Israel" less ambiguous since "Israel" is a name used in other contexts, while "Gaza Strip" and "West Bank" have no ambiguity about them. Do you feel it would be more balanced to just say, "roughly, present Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"? --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 06:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's the conclusion I came to above. Let's go for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I prefer it as it was: "present Israel" isn't very idiomatic. —Ashley Y 11:03, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

How about "Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip"? That's even shorter, and is idiomatic as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, like that best --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

As you all know by now, I think that in the context of this being the emblem of a militant insurgency group, the Palestinian territories ought to be stated as occupied. However if the consensus favors omitting this, I am willing to concede this point (admittedly with reluctance), as the distinction seems a little less vital with "State of Israel" being changed to "Israel." --AladdinSE 21:25, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a difference inasmuch as "West Bank" and "Gaza" are names for territories that would presumably continue to be used if Hamas got their way. "Israel", at least in the sense of the modern state, is by contrast the name of a state, not a territory. States are political declarations that refer to territory, they are not the territories themselves. One could speak of the land of Israel as a territory, but that would certainly be POV. But I can live with what we have now. —Ashley Y 01:09, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Hey I got the translation for the Arabic text in the emblem that someone asked about... it's the Islamic Shahadah, the profession of faith (first pillar of Islam) ... "There is no deity but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God." --AladdinSE 08:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm awaiting an ILL delivery,

The article reduces Hamas's attacks on fellow Palestinians to three words buried in the middle of a paragraph: Hamas has also attacked Israeli military and security forces targets (mostly inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip and occasionally inside Israel), suspected Palestinian collaborators, and Fatah rivals. I have a source here stating, in part, By the end of the intifada in 1993, almost 400 Palestinians had been murdered by other Palestinians---nearly as many as had been killed by Israeli defense forces. It doesn't say how many of these killings were carried out by Hamas, and there are other sources ([8] or First Intifada) which state the number as up to a thousand. The source is Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel, which is clearly a work of advocacy. However, it cites a source which is, as far as I can tell, not a work of advocacy for Israel.

The citation is Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, 2001, p. 596. While I'm waiting for the source to come in via interlibrary loan, I'd appreciate any comments folks might have about Hamas's violence against Palestinians as well as Israelis. grendel|khan 19:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Btselem, a reasonably evenhanded (I better duck, I bet) peace group lists stats on their website [9]; they count 157 Palestinians killed by Palestinians in the 5 years of the intifada, but that's only back to 9/2000. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence, however, that (as in any such situation) people will take advantage of the opportunity to rid themselves of burdensome debts, etc. by denouncing individuals as collaborators and seeing them killed without "due process". I better duck again. Gzuckier 19:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Can anecdotal evidence be strong enough to cite? Is there a decent study of this anywhere? If the number of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians is remotely comparable to the number killed by Israelis... well, that says something, doesn't it? grendel|khan 20:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Rant by Anon IP

Hamas is not a terroist organinization but the whole collective and illegal state of Israel is this was obviously a bias account and description Israel is not legally a state and The Torah does not give it to them since Mose's was a Prophet of Allah(La Illaha Illa Allah)..The Isreli military has killed tortured and maimed us Muslim's for to long Hamas and The Al Aqsa Brigade and other such liberation force's have simply taken the intiative to correct this herendous mistake..Everybody know's that the isreli army is a bigger threat to civilian life than Hama's.. PALESTINE is a Muslim land modern day Palestine is simply infested with lying Jew's and now cross worshipper's..We liberated Palestine from the roman's and the crusader's and established peaceful Islamic Law that tolerated jew's and christian's but clearly you have violated us on our land and we are the terrorists??I think not Palestine is an Islamic Land and alway's will be just because a bunch of jew's where packed in there by christian's does not mean it is your land and the closest thing that you have as a claim to our land is false and unreliable it is proved that the torah was changed many time's therefore it is made to suit Jew's in general not mankind therefore you are the only people that are racist in this equasion..Let's think you claim where racist but we allowed you access to Jeursalem for year's when we had complete control..now that it is in your hands you terrorize us murder us and say that only jew's should live in Palestine so are we anti semetic yes but by neccassity but you are anti-islamic because you are arragont disdanful lying fool's.. Islam will prevail i guarantee you that we will build a beautiful Mosque on that cursed wall that has fuled the heart's of those who murder us Muslim's daily..

Let me tell you a story. Once, while i was flying from the US to South America, I ended up sitting on the plane next to a blond Israeli woman. She was young, roughly 20, and we ended spending most of the time discussing politics. To say that she was a right-wing extremist would be an understatement. But her viewpoint was nearly identical to yours with the exception of the fact that she would have substituted Palestine for Israel and vice versa in her point of view. I am no fan of the Israeli state or the tactics used by the IDF (which have come under fire even from the usually silent ICRC because the IDF was using the ICRC employees as human shields). Isreal is, after all, the only country in the world where would-be Nazi collaberator and former terrorist Yitzhak Shamir can be elected Prime Minister. This being said however, even these problems don't justify the use of terror in such resistance.

You have to understand that bombing busses does nothing to earn support for your cause in the eyes of the vast majority of the world, whether in Islamic nations or not. You have to understand that nothing can be earned by such attacks and that Hamas's only mainstream support comes from its para-state activities. Nobody in the mainstream of any country supports attacking Israeli civilians inside the Green Line.

You want to win your war? I will tell you how to win it. Stop importing guns and explosives. Instead import video cameras, digital cameras, and the like. Stop sniping at Israelis. Instead peacefully march on their checkpoints and overwhelm them with your numbers. If they want to kill Palestinians, document it photographically. Export those photos. If you must smuggle them out of the country to do so, do it. Show the world through your photos that horror which unfolds. Force Europe to become involved and stop importing goods from Israel through these horrors. The hardest lesson to learn is that nonviolence in the face of violence is the most powerful weapon in the world because it leverages tremendous political support from all around the world. But it can only be effective when it is pared with a strong publicity campaign.

Concerning the Above Rant, II

Do either that rant or its response really belong here? This is a discussion of the neutrality of a Wikipedia article, not the merits of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IMO, both of them should be deleted.

I don't like the idea of deleting discussion that isn't really obvious crapflooding or spam. On the other hand, I assume this isn't the first time this has happened, but since there's nothing else on the talk page in the way of unsigned ranting, it must get archived or deleted pretty quickly. grendel|khan 14:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hamas Terrorist Activities

Stop removing references to Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Terrorism is not some vague or subjective phenomenon. It has an objective definition and therefore classifying an organisation as terrorist when it fits that definition does not violate NPOV. For the above reason I am changing the second sentence of the article from:

While Hamas is involved in social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza, it also has a history of targeting Israeli civilians to further its goal of a single Palestinian state.

To: Hamas is involved in terrorist, military, and social welfare activities.

If you have a good reason of changing this version, I suggest you post them in this discussion.

I agree.Loomis51 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The term terrorism is subjective. You could define the U.S. as having involved themselves in terrorism. I'm sure this would be argued to be untrue. So this is why I am removing terrorist and adding, after military "using tactics some nations define as terrorism"

-Your a idiot who add this "Stop removing references to Hamas as a terrorist organisation" if someone put references to the US Army as a terrorist organization everyone as well would remove them. The US Amry's actions are no different then Hamas.

I remember the Battle of the Alamo in Texas history. The "bad guy" Antonio López de Santa Anna at least called for the non-combatants to escape before he attacked the Alamo. This makes him a military man rather than a terrorist even though he killed all of the defenders of the Alamo.

A possible solution to the violence in Afganistan, Palestine, and Iraq is to have opportunities for all. If everyone could have their own family business, this could put people to work. We know that we in the US, don't want Bahrain to control our ports here. Maybe their point was that they don't want the US to have economic power over there any more than we want foreign powers to have control of our ports here. If the countries in the region, could be allowed to have small investments in their own regions, that would actually help the US to get out of Iraq and we would be taking fewer causualties, and the Afganis, the Palestinians, and the Iraqis could have more control of their own countries. Signed: www.soft-power.org.

If you want your opinion to be taken serious and considered, I kindly urge you to not insult your co-writers and sign your posts. Bertilvidet 07:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that terrorism is a subjective term and should not be used as fact. Tetrahedron93 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

life is a subjective thing, would you like to die first? --tasc 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact, however, that Hamas has ultimatums set against it demanding that they cease the destruction of a Jewish state ends any subjectibility to the concept of their terrorism. In the instances of people claiming that one could "call the U.S. a terrorist organization because it's subjective", this is a very poor example, because regardless of those harmed in a conflict, in order for something to be considered terrorist behavior, it must involve the intended and stated target being either civilians, or with the intent of inciting terror on a large scale as a weapon. If the United States dropped a bomb on a target with an al-Qaida operative in Baghdad, and the objective of the operation was to eradicate that operative for the purpose of destabilizing the insurgent motive, the number of people inside regardless of their combatant status does not make that a terror strike, though it would be one of questionable integrity. On the other hand, Hamas has declared through rituals and rallies that they intend to attack targets of no distinct military value with the intent of using the terror they endow as a weapon. This is the definition of terrorism.Ezedriel

Obviously, any random attack on a civilian population should be considered an act of terrorism, but the repeated use of terrorist tactics should not be the sole standard by which Hamas is defined or analyzed. The statement above (that "Hamas is involved in terrorist, military, and social welfare activities") implies that the majority of Hamas' activities involve violence--and this simply has no basis in fact. Far more capital and energy is spent by Hamas on social welfare than on terrorism and other forms of resistance. If we are to ignore this fact, we may as well ignore Palestinian politics entirely. (Mingus ah um 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

How exactly have you measured the "capital and energy" spent by Hamas on terrorist activities vs. social welfare? Have you seen their budget? If you claim this has "no basis in fact", by all means, show us the facts you are referring to. Or maybe you regard financial support to the families of suicide bombers "social welfare".

-Sangil 00:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's true that there is no way for us to audit Hamas... I should not have brought capital into this discussion. The point I apparently failed to make is that there is no doubt on either side of this debate that there are far more members of Hamas working for philanthropic causes within the P.A. [pro bono education, pro bono health care, etc] then there are estimated terrorist cells. If we ignore their activism, we fail to address the root (and meaning) of their rise to power within the P.A. --(Mingus ah um 01:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

The Article Formerly Known as "Hamas's "Philanthropic" Wing"

I think we can all agree three basic points:

- Hamas does not recognize the existence of Israel and is committed to its "removal" (to use an NPOV term) from the face of the earth.

- Hamas has committed violient acts, targeted at killing Israeli civilians (whom it regards as potential soldiers).

- Hamas also provides philanthropic services to the Palestinian people, including building Hospitals and Schools.

My suggestion, therefore, is to leave the introductory paragraph alone. However, to be consistent, and to retain a NPOV, the first paragraph of the article on German Nazism should begin with a comment on how it brought Germany out of economic depression, renewed hope among the German people, began a youth movement that inspired its members with discipline and good, honest, hard work, and, just happened also to have advocated the extermination of all Jews.

Sounds pretty NPOV doesn't it? Presenting the good and the bad?Loomis51 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is not subjective. Murderers who target innocent civilians is outright terrorism. If Hamas just targeted military and political targets it is still terrorism, though it could be construed as unconventional warfare. But killing innocent Israeli citizens is murder, plain and simple. Homicide bombers are bringing more misery upon the "Palestinians" (Philistines). The Philistines are occupying Israel and Israel has the right to fully annex what is theirs. It is about good and bad - killing innocent people sipping coffee in cafes or traveling on the bus is MURDER. COLD BLOODED MURDER. NO JUSTIFICATION. Hamas are Islamic fascists. They want to destroy Israel and kill Jews. The election victory of Hamas is an utter disaster for the Palestinians as well as Israel; they just committed suicide by electing a terrorist group. This is completely unacceptable to Israel. Israel will probably have to utterly defeat this Islamic fascist threat politically and militarily. Israel will not stand idly by. With Hamas committing most of the homicide bombings of innocent Israeli citizens, Israel will severely punish these murderers who bribe the Palestinian people with social services. The Arabs are trying to take apart Israel piece by piece what they could never hope to win in war. Israel must assert its muscle and take back the so-called "occupied territories" and expel the Palestinians from Israeli soil.

The election victory of Hamas is an utter disaster for the Palestinians as well as Israel; they just committed suicide by electing a terrorist group. This is completely unacceptable to Israel. Israel will probably have to utterly defeat this Islamic fascist threat politically and militarily. Israel will not stand idly by. With Hamas committing most of the homicide bombings of innocent Israeli citizens, Israel will severely punish these murderers who bribe the Palestinian people with social services. The Arabs are trying to take apart Israel piece by piece what they could never hope to win in war. Israel must assert its muscle and take back the so-called "occupied territories" and expel the Arab occupiers, the "Palestinians” from Israeli soil.

1. The policy of Israel and the US should be that we do not care one wit what words come out of the mouths of terrorists. Only a complete physical disarming will get any attention. 2. All funding for the PA must be immediately rescinded and future funding stopped. 3. Israel should immediately annex ALL of Jerusalem and the required borders for a defensible state. 4. Any violence from the PA and Hamas should be viewed as a declaration of war the goal should now be to eliminate the power of the PA to make war.

Adolf Hitler got to power by an overwhelming "democratic" majority. This is prove and outstanding example of the tragically misleading of "democratic" voting, if basic rules of mutual collaboration and acceptance are not observed. So, like the German people in 1933 was not mature to vote democratic - are likewise people today, who question the right of existence of their neighbors and advocate the application of rude force.

90. deja vu circa 1933 rick 01/26/2006 16:57 In the March 5, 1933 elections, the National Socialist German Workers' Party won 43.9% and 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag. So Hamas did better than Hitler so the path should be easier for them. Also Hamas doesn't even need a Reichstag fire as most Palestinians are quite content to kill Jews right now. With Hitler you had an inkling of what to expect but the total picture wasn't crystal clear except to those who read Mein Kampf and followed Hitler closely. With Hamas it's like the National Socialist Party in 1942. We know exactly what they have done, what they intent to do and what their opinion is of the "apes and pig people." There's no excuse now. What you see is what you get and the Palestinian party of Islamic fascist racism is celebrating today For years the Jews all over the world have been screaming that the Pals goal is to wipe out the Jews and today’s election results bear that out. The Pals chose a group whose goal is the destruction of Israel - way to go Pals. Is it a bad thing - on the face of it yes but in reality no? It will prove Israel is and has been right all along and maybe the threat of war will finally get the egg heads in the Israeli government to finally say ENOUGH, and banish the Arabs once and for all. The "peace process" so far has just been a slow bleeding of Israel, militarily, economically and territorially. Its time to stop it. Its time to turn Gaza into Dresden or Hiroshima. Both Germany and Japan stopped hostilities after those events - now its time for Israel to do the same.

) Every single news station now refers to Judea and Samaria as the occupied territories without and exception. I direct result of giving up to the world 5) A Dead prime minister who now cant even defend his policies, to reassure his naive population 6) major rifts amongst the Jewish people Am Yisrael HAI 7) A land that was once flourishing a barren land full of rubble 8) A organization that insists on the destruction of Israel and has a very close and powerful friend Iran. All this because you are rebels and you do not follows the ways of your destiny. Throughout history we have been plagued by horror because of one thing, you work it out FOOLS

The election victory of Hamas is an utter disaster for the Palestinians as well as Israel; they just committed suicide by electing a terrorist group. This is completely unacceptable to Israel. Israel will probably have to utterly defeat this Islamic fascist threat politically and militarily. Israel will not stand idly by. With Hamas committing most of the homicide bombings of innocent Israeli citizens, Israel will severely punish these murderers who bribe the Palestinian people with social services. The Arabs are trying to take apart Israel piece by piece what they could never hope to win in war. Israel must assert its muscle and take back the so-called "occupied territories" and expel the Palestinians from Israeli soil. 1. The policy of Israel and the US should be that we do not care one wit what words come out of the mouths of terrorists. Only a complete physical disarming will get any attention. 2. All funding for the PA must be immediately rescinded and future funding stopped. 3. Israel should immediately annex ALL of Jerusalem and the required borders for a defensible state. 4. Any violence from the PA and Hamas should be viewed as a declaration of war the goal should now be to eliminate the power of the PA to make war.

Adolf Hitler got to power by an overwhelming "democratic" majority. This is prove and outstanding example of the tragically misleading of "democratic" voting, if basic rules of mutual collaboration and acceptance are not observed. So, like the German people in 1933 was not mature to vote democratic - are likewise people today, who question the right of existence of their neighbors and advocate the application of rude force. In the March 5, 1933 elections, the National Socialist German Workers' Party won 43.9% and 288 of 647 seats in the Reichstag. So Hamas did better than Hitler so the path should be easier for them. Also Hamas doesn't even need a Reichstag fire as most Palestinians are quite content to kill Jews right now. With Hitler you had an inkling of what to expect but the total picture wasn't crystal clear except to those who read Mein Kampf and followed Hitler closely. With Hamas it's like the National Socialist Party in 1942. We know exactly what they have done, what they intent to do and what their opinion is of the "apes and pig people." There's no excuse now. What you see is what you get and the Palestinian party of Islamic fascist racism is celebrating today For years the Jews all over the world have been screaming that the Pals goal is to wipe out the Jews and today’s election results bear that out. The Pals chose a group whose goal is the destruction of Israel - way to go Pals. Is it a bad thing - on the face of it yes but in reality no? It will prove Israel is and has been right all along and maybe the threat of war will finally get the egg heads in the Israeli government to finally say ENOUGH, and banish the Arabs once and for all. The "peace process" so far has just been a slow bleeding of Israel, militarily, economically and territorially. Its time to stop it. Its time to turn Gaza into Dresden or Hiroshima. Both Germany and Japan stopped hostilities after those events - now its time for Israel to do the same.

Every single news station now refers to Judea and Samaria as the occupied territories without and exception.

This is what I think Israel should do in response to this crisis:

1st) Israel should cut off any electricity, gas, energy, funding and blockade that fiction called "Palestine", why the hell is Israel even supplying their bloodthirsty enemy with this? This is insane to begin with.

2) One more suicide bombing in Israel by ANY Arab faction is a total declaration of war against Israel, as if it hasn't been de facto already.

3) If the above happens, Israel should wipe out the Hamas, PLO, and Islamic Jihad and whatever other pretentiously named murderers out there. Invade, bomb, nuke them if you have to.

4) Expel the Arab occupiers of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, retake the post 1967 borders and throw these "Palestinians" out of Eretz Yisrael. They just "legitimized" a terrorist group, forget anymore negotiation. Make no mistake the Arab colonialists in Israel want its destruction. No more living in dreamland folks.

5) I don't care how "free and fair" this sham election is. The Nazis won in 1933 in a democratic election. Doesn't make them less evil, Hamas won 70 %, doesn't make them a "peace partner". Doesn't stop them from being still an evil murderous terrorist group. The Palestinians just committed national suicide.

6) I don't see anyone crying or complaining about the 1 million Jews expelled from the Arab world after 1948, Jews who were there way before Islam, the Arabs can have the rest of that region, leave us in peace in our historical and spiritual homeland.

7) Israel should cut off any diplomatic, financial or other ties to any country that supports the Hamas regime or its allies from now on.

Why is it that Hitler need's to pop up in every discussion of topics related to Israel as a justification for its actions? If I was to call Ariel Sharon was also democratically elected, a murdering tyrant bent on ethnic cleansing of all non-jews from 'Greater Israel' I'm sure it would rile alot of you up. See now what I just posted is an example of emotive language which is totally unproductive, just like all your Hitler rants.

While I understand the anger, frustration and pain that has led to the posts in this sub-section, I do not believe that they bring us any closer to defining the nature and importance of Hamas' philanthropy within the P.A. Consequently, I have changed the title of this sub-section accordingly. (Mingus ah um 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

Countries that consider Hamas to be a terrorist group

I have added Australia to the list of countries that consider Hamas as a terrorist group. See: http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/CADAB9AC4723C526CA256FCD001BA892?OpenDocument for more information.

2006 election result

Some claims continuosly that Hamas won 56,1 %. I have now added reference to the figures (42,9%)(Central Clection Commission - Palesetine). As long as my figures are not refuted with a reliable reference, I suggest that we consider any edit of the election result as vandalism. See also [Palestinian legislative election, 2006] Bertilvidet 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Where to put the "Terrorist group" part of description

I suggest replacing "as well as in terrorist activities" for "as well as violent activities", because terrorism is a non-neutral term. Everyone would agree on the violent nature of something, but not on the terrorist nature. If not, I suggest that the article would have to be classified as "not neutral".

Let me start by saying I'm no partisan of Hamas or Islamist political parties in general.

But can the people who keep sticking the "terrorist group" designation in the first sentence please stop it? I certainly don't disagree that lots of what Hamas does is terrorism. But it seems to me that we can leave the discussion of terrorist activity to the third sentence/paragraph of the description. The first two sentences/grafs should just deal with the organization in the most general of terms, and relatively objectively, and to some extent on its own terms.

For all of the zealots out there who care about nothing but the terrorist part...your time will come, in sentence number 3. Okay? Please? jackbrown 13:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

PS- This article betrays the fundamental weakness of the Wikipedia system when it comes to strongly contested political issues: partisans of one side or both edit the article into a disconnected, uninformative mass of gibberish instead of letting the wonderful wiki process of information accretion and expertise produce something which actually informs readers.

The best example here:

Hamas built its electoral strength on a lot more than suicide bombings against Israel; like a lot of Islamist movements, it derives its strength from supplying services where the state (ie Fatah and the PLO) fail; education, housing etc. Also, it was operating until last week from the very convenient position of being able to criticize the PLO for its corruption and incompetence from the sidelines. (Now we'll see if they're any better at operating than the PLO was, right?)

But of course our article has none of this (or when it does it's buried somewhere), thanks to the partisans who crash about wrecking everything in their zeal to get their point across. All this article talks about is terrorism. Hamas certainly is more than that, whatever your political views are on Israel/Palestine. jackbrown 13:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to use the word "terrorist" in the context of the US, European Union, and Israel's official categorization of Hamas; that's a verifiable fact for now. Outside of that context, I stick by the "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" maxim. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The maxim you are referring to is logically incorrect. "Freedom fighter" as a term pertains to the goal which a person is trying to achieve. Terrorism is a TACTIC used to achieve that or any other goal. I think its easy to agree that Hamas is a terrorist organisation from NPOV because it employs terrorist tactics ( Terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear -dictionary.com). Please note that acknowledging the fact that Hamas is inherently a terrorist organisation does not depend on justification of Hamas actions or lack of it and therefore does not violate NPOV. Jackbrown, if you argue against using the word terrorist in the first sentence of the description please provide an clear and logical explanation as to why not, rather than calling people zealots. I think that little comment clearly reveals you are biased. -neolex ([email protected])

By that definition, Israel is a terrorist state from NPOV, and I think its easy to agree on that, since Israel uses calculated violence on a daily basis against innocent Palestinian civilians in order to attain goals that political and religious in nature. It is even easier to justify that in the case of Israel than Hamas, since at least Hamas and the palestinian people are trying to defend themselves against the huge American-supplied Israeli war machine in an internationally-recognized illegal occupation by Israel. So we either agree to call both parties terrorists, or we drop it from both. -Trovaldo

Any group that deliberately targets civilians is a terrorist group, so calling Hamas a terrorist group is correct. But, we must remember that they also have non-terrorist activities, which is already noted in the article to some degree. (Grammaton Cleric, Feb 2, 06)

Israel funded Hamas?

What is the definitive source for Israel's early support of Hamas? Articles referenced seem to go both ways. I think that this should be brought up, but shouldn't be stated as fact. 00:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the article says Hamas was founded 1987 but funded by Israel 1970. How come? Leandro GFC Dutra 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some more information about Israel's early support for Hamas; something I've heard a lot about but never seen discussed in detail.jackbrown 14:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Leandro - the reason for the confusion in dates is that the article fails to carefully outline the fact that Hamas is an organization which grew out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood during the first Intifada--and then basically supplanted the Brotherhood; nowadays there is no distinction between them in Palestine. I guess I should write a paragraph in the article outlining the evolution. But I feel that the article is so broken that it needs to be taken down and rewritten from the bottom up, something you can't do on Wiki.jackbrown 14:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated blocks of text in this Talk

There appear to be large sections of this Talk page that are repeated, as if the entire text of it was appended to itself at one point. Would one of the more established contributors to this page please delete the extra copies of the discussions? Once that is done, feel free to delete this note as well. Thanks. --Lachrym 21:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Please could the contributor also consider altering wording which may provoke controversy on what is obviously a contentious article. Eg the present article refers to the assassination of Izz El-Dee Sheikh Khaild whilst describing the killings of Yaron and Erfat Ungar as muder.195.93.21.100 11:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Municipal elections

Hamadamas, I deleted "In 2004, Hamas participated in the Municipal elections in parts of the Gaza Strip and won a considerable percentage of seats there. [10]" I did this because the link after the sentence isn't about the municipal elections, and "considerable percentage" is a POV weasel term. You need to say what percentage and supply a source. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin for correcting me. How does it look now? Hamadamas 06:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's very good. Thank you for finding the source and re-writing it. My only criticism would be that you've quoted the BBC but without quotation marks. I would either paraphrase what the BBC said or use part of it as a quote e.g. "Hamas gained over one third of the municipal councils in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, taking control of them from Fatah, described by the BBC as "the biggest force in Palestinian politics." And then link to the story. But that's just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Good Suggestion Slim. I'll do something like that. Thanks. Hamadamas 08:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel conscription rates

While 80% of those who receive summons serve. only 50% of Israelis get a summons. This makes the word universal wrong. Those who are exempt from service include most minority groups (over 20%), those who are not physically or psychologically fit, married women or women with children, religious males who are studying in an accredited Jewish Law institution (most Haredi which are another 10%) and religious females (Haredi and non haredi total 20%) who choose to pursue 'national service' - community work. total only 80% of 50% serve.

In reserve duty the number drop to 10%.

If on the other hand a mother of a child is considered a mother of a soldier to be - then this fit Hamas "logic" of killing every jew. Zeq 21:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source on this? And even if the rates are lower like you said, the sentence can still be kept with the lower rates. 50% or so is still significant. So if you can provide a source, we can change the sentence to make it so it shows these percentage. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No you can not "change the sentence to make it so it shows these percentage" because this would show that this is your original research that you are changing to adapt it to the reality (that israeli public is not 100% soldiers). So Please let us remove this "terror justifying" sentence and if you find a source that we should use in order to return it please provide it. Right now it is unsourced and not true. Zeq 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Look you said that "Israel's policy of universal conscription implies that a majority of adults serve in either the Israeli military or the reserves at some point in their lives" is not true. So do you have any sources to change this. It is not a terror justifying sentence anyways and if you were telling the truth in giving statistics like only 80% of 50% serve then you would source this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we talking about your own argument or about what Hamas is arguing. If this is what hamas is saying (and you have source for this) please fell free to quote that source and I will add a note (and source it) that hamas is wrong.

If you offer to change the argument based on what i wrote, this mean this is not what Hamas is saying but what you are saying - in such case this is Original Reseach - and should not be on the article. It does look to me as trying to justify killing civilians - this is "justifying terror" which I don't think should be on Wikipedia. It may even put it in leagl situation that it want to avoid. In any case the best way to avoid such problems is also the right way we are doing things around here: Quote it and source it.

Zeq 19:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, please see Israel Defense Forces#Reserve Service and talk:Israel Defense Forces#Omitted sentence about participation in reserve service. It is well-known that the vast majority of Israelis do not participate in reserve service. The sentence that Zeq removed created a false impression that the Israeli society is combatant in some respect. Since Hamas' argument is presented in a NPOV manner further down anyway, I think this sentence is better left.--Doron 08:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay I am fine with it. I just wanted him to provide some source on the matter as I have too heard that most Israelis are required to serve some time in the army. It would have been easier if Zeq just clarified with a source rather than saying that he "will add a note that Hamas is wrong". If later a source can be provided that a large percentage are required to serve I think the sentence can be re-added with some changes. Thanks for the info Doron. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I simply don't understand the purpose of this debate. What exactly makes Israeli conscription rates relevant to anything? Does a high conscription rate mean that terrorist attacks against civilians are more justified? Remember that the United States and pretty much every other country in the world at one time or another had conscription. Even Canada, (where I'm from,) a country admired for its devotion to world peace, had, during hard times (i.e. WWII,) universal adult male conscription. What exactly is the point of this debate anyway?Loomis51 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To be accurate, I believe. --Anonymous Canadian--

Food for thought

In the quest for neutrality, most here seem to want to fight for the position of one group over another. Some bring religious text into account without actually knowing or quoting the actual text. The state of Israel was legally declared in 1948, so claiming it is an illegal state is ridiculous. Murdering people while they enjoy a slice of pizza or cup of coffee or blowing up a bus with kids on it is terrorism, prove me wrong. Quoting the protocols of the elders of zion is both irresponsible and dangerous. They were fictional. I am jewish, and I've never been to the meetings. neither has my father, or his father, or anyone I have ever met. There is no conspiracy amongst jews to dominate or rule or run the world. If there is, it is failing miserably. Hamas is a militant, extremist, islamic terrorist group with the singular goal of destroying the state of israel and replacing it with an illegal state called palestine. If they were truly a group interested in the plight of muslims, they would be charitable, kind and philanthropic. Instead, they line up children in front of a school and then open fire on israeli military personnel, then cry and scream when a child gets shot. the claim that moses was a prophet of Allah is insane. The Torah predates the Koran by almost 3000 years. Mohommed, the greatest prophet of Allah was illiterate, which is how most of the muslim world is kept. An illiterate public is a compliant and obedient public, hence the devotion to the hatred of everyone not muslim. In some places of the Koran, Muslims are called to love ‘people of the book’, Christians, Jews and other theologians, and in other places called to kill them. The reality is, no god has ever espoused murder in their name. Quite the contrary, it is the calling of man to murder is exaltation to god. It should also be noted that so called palestinians are actually refugees from neighboring arab nations that refused to allow their safe return to their homelands. Most of these people were given safe harbor back to their nations of origin, only to be shot at and put in danger by the receiving nations. It is a documented fact that every single 'palestinian' came from an arab, muslim nation that refuses them the right of return.

-- the torah wasn't made a writing until about 1000 years before the quranic revelations.

according to Wikipedia, the Torah was handed down to Moses in writen form c.1280 BC. That would make it almost 2000 years older than the Koran, not 1000.Loomis51 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

christians and jews who speak arabic say they worship allah, do you discredit them all? surely christians think moses was a prophet of god (allah/eloah/elohim)

Jews don't worship Allah...what are you smoking?Loomis51 06:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

- What is the problem with the prophet being unable to read ("illiterate" in your words)? This is not disputed by Muslims. In fact, his inability to read is cited as evidence that the Quran must have divine provenance since he could not have written it himself. I don't necessarily believe in this argument (I'm Muslim by the way), but cite it to show that "Prophet is illiterate" is not actually a useful insult. /bangali/

Allah and God refer to the same thing, so to say that 'Moses was a prophet of Allah is insane', is uninformed and plain ignorant.

Allah is only the Muslim reference to God. Jews and Christians do not refer to God as Allah. You should know better than that.Loomis51 06:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Allah means God in Arabic. Jews and Christians do not refer to God as Allah unless they are speaking Arabic, in which case they do. The words "You should know better than that" and "what are you smoking" are unneccessary. --Anonymous Canadian--

Hamas never lines up children and shoots innocent people. Consider this, in Israel, the conscription age is 18, thus anybody over the age of 18 is technically a soldier, therefore can be considered a target. Hamas also won the election in 2006 because they have social programs for the poor and build schools, and what do you know, they even have female leaders and soldiers.

Hamas is well known for its use of "Human Shields".

I'm sure the KKK has a "philanthropic wing", aiding poor white children...that does not make it any less a despicable organization. The same goes for Hamas.Loomis51 06:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because the existence of Israel was "legitimized" by Britain, the US and other countries, does not mean that you can simply take over a land where people have lived for generations and called Palestine, and suddenly rename it Israel and claim that Palestinians have no place there.

Palestinians have a place there, they vote, get named to the knesset and even have a place in the cabinet of Israel. So much can not be said of the 20 or so "Arab" nations where Jews have lived for generations yet enjoy no civil rights.Loomis51 06:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also... Us Jews had the land first... the Promised Land... If you truly want to get into religious terms. However, BECAUSE WE AREN'T ARGUING ABOUT THAT... Hamas is a terrorist organization. So is the IRA, Al Qaeda, and Jewish terrorist groups. You can't argue that an organization is a terrorist group if the use terror as a means to sway the mindset of a region ie: Random mortar attacks on Kibbutz's and settlements in Israel, torturing of mothers in Ireland, and the shooting of Arab civilians on a bus by a Jewish man. THEY ARE ALL TERRORISTS!!! - Jay Kay 12:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dubious biased edit

there is no reason for this edit: [11] Zeq 04:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Two things:

• The person quoted in the Gardian is quoted as hearing Rantisi say that they will "wipe Israel off the map". This may or may not be the goal of Hamas, but this article (from the Guardian) does not claim this is a stated goal. Use the Hamas charter if you want to find out what the stated goal is. "Wipe Israel off the map" is something that Iranian nutcase says.
• As for the spin doctor story - Hamas strongly denied it yesterday, and actually explained who Aqtash is (a media advisor for the campaign in the Ramallah area only). See here if you read Arabic.

Ramallite ^(talk) 06:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a valid POV. Feel free to present both POV into the article. Zeq 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your POV does not constitute a valid POV for introduction into Wikipedia, it consitutes original research. Palmiro | Talk 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is all quotes (source: [12]) so there goes your argument of OR. But more important is your tone and attitude: While I am willing to accept a different POV you deligitimize any POV that is not yours.

btw, How things in damsak now a days ? ready for snactions ? Zeq 08:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that helpful remark, not to mention your ever-appreciated positive tone and attitude. Palmiro | Talk 16:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You have given no reason for your revert of the sourced material. So I am revereting your revert. Do you want to go through another edit war or find the other POV, source it and present it. You surly know how wikipedia works (and avoid the perosonal sracastic remarks. Hope all is well for you in Demsak. Zeq 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite has given the reasons. Are you seriously complaining about "personal sarcastic remarks" that I made? Palmiro | Talk 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny the Guradian quote ? go and argue this with the guardian not with me. If you have an alternate POV (different description of events from the one portrayed by the Guardian) and this alternate POV is in a source that we can all verify - go ahead present that POV side by side to the one by the guardian. Zeq 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on this: the spin doctor allegation can be mentioned, as an allegation, and with the Hamas reply also cited. It should not be mentioned in the way that Zeq suggests, which I think is overly long (this is, after all, a minuscule detail), doesn't really fit the paragraph (it should be with election info), and needs a rewrite for better style. Also, the Guardian article does not claim that Hamas pays families of suicide bombers, generously or otherwise. Arre 22:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

BBC NEWS

Who are Hamas? Hamas appears to have translated its widespread popularity among Palestinians into a dramatic win in the Parliamentary elections.

Its new-found political status does not make it any less controversial, however.

Branded a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and the EU, it is seen by its supporters as a legitimate fighting force defending Palestinians from a brutal military occupation.

It is the largest Palestinian militant Islamist organisation, formed in 1987 at the beginning of the first intifada, or Palestinian uprising against Israel's occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

The group's short-term aim has been to drive Israeli forces from the occupied territories, through attacks on Israeli troops and settlers in the Palestinian territories and - more controversially - against civilians in Israel.

It insists that the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops from Gaza last year was a victory for this policy.

It also has a long-term aim of establishing an Islamic state on all of historic Palestine - most of which has been contained within Israel's borders since its creation in 1948.

Since the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, it has taken part in local elections and won many seats in areas like Gaza, Qalqilya and Nablus.

But its biggest triumph follows this week's parliamentary elections, in which the group appears to have won enough seats to form the next Palestinian government.

The grass-roots organisation - with a political and a military wing - has an unknown number of active members but tens of thousands of supporters and sympathisers.

Up to 40,000 people rallied in Gaza City in December 2002 to mark Hamas' 15th anniversary where they heard the group's spiritual leader, the late Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, predict Israel's destruction by the year 2025.

Huge crowds also took to the streets after his assassination by Israel in 2004 and that his successor Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi later that year.

Opponent of Oslo

Hamas is divided into two main spheres of operation:

   * social programmes like building schools, hospitals and religious institutions
   * militant operations carried out by Hamas' underground Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. 

It also has a branch in exile, formerly in Jordan - where one of its leaders, Khalid Meshaal, was the target of a bungled Israeli assassination attempt in 1997.

King Hussein tolerated Hamas' presence but his successor, King Abdullah II had the group's headquarters closed down and senior figures expelled to Qatar.

Hamas came to prominence after the first intifada as the main Palestinian opponent of the Oslo accords - the US-sponsored peace process that oversaw the gradual and partial removal of Israel's occupation in return for Palestinian guarantees to protect Israeli security.

Despite numerous Israeli operations against Hamas and clampdowns by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian National Authority, Hamas found it had an effective power of veto over the process by launching suicide attacks.

In February and March 1996, Hamas carried out several suicide bus bombings, killing nearly 60 Israelis, in retaliation for the assassination in December 1995 of Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash.

The bombings were widely credited with turning Israelis off the peace process and bringing about the election of hardline right-winger Binyamin Netanyahu who was a staunch opponent of the Oslo accords.

Growing support

In the post-Oslo world, most particularly following the failure of US President Bill Clinton's Camp David summit in the summer of 2000 and the second intifada which followed shortly thereafter, Hamas gained power and influence as Israel steadily destroyed the infrastructure of the secularist Palestinian Authority.

In towns and refugee camps besieged by the Israeli army, Hamas organises clinics and schools which serve Palestinians who feel entirely let down by the corrupt and inefficient PNA.

It also summarily executed Palestinian collaborators with Israel and dished out vigilante punishments for "immoral behaviour".

Many Palestinians cheered the wave of Hamas suicide attacks (and those of fellow militants Islamic Jihad and the secular al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) which followed.

Many Palestinians saw "martyrdom" operations as the best way to avenge their own losses and counter Israel's unchecked settlement building in the West Bank.

There have been efforts to unite the various Palestinian factions, with Cairo hosting a series of meetings since 2002 to negotiate a suspension of terror attacks.

But Hamas has always shied away from signing up to a permanent ceasefire while Israel occupies Palestinian territory and its troops are responsible for the deaths of Palestinians there.

"The killing of civilians must be punished by the killing of civilians," Mahmoud al-Zahhar, a senior member of Hamas, said.

Assassinations

As well as inflicting by far the most casualties on Israelis - with attacks that are generally better-planned and executed than those of other militant groups - Hamas has lost many members of its leadership in Israeli assassinations and security sweeps.

Its founder Sheikh Yassin was killed in a missile attack on 22 March 2004, after an unsuccessful attempt on his life six months before.

Following the killing of Sheikh Yassin, Mr Rantissi emerged as Hamas leader in Gaza before he too was assassinated on 17 April 2004. Khaled Meshaal, now based in Syria and Lebanon, is the group's overall leader.

Prominent Hamas officials killed by the Israelis include Ismail Abu Shanab, in August 2003, and Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades leader Salah Shehada, in July 2002.

Shehada's successor, Mohammad Deif - whom Israel blames for the 1996 bombings - has escaped several attempts on his life.

But Hamas attacks on Israel have continued thick and fast, with suicide bombings and armed assaults claiming hundreds of lives. Three Hamas supporters were even convicted of an unsuccessful attempt to poison Israeli diners at a Jerusalem restaurant.

On the other hand, the group has shown itself willing to periodically suspend attacks in favour of Palestinian diplomacy, if the group sees fit.

"The main aim of the intifada [uprising] is the liberation of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, and nothing more. We haven't the force to liberate all our land," Mr Rantissi told the BBC in 2002.

"It is forbidden in our religion to give up a part of our land, so we can't recognise Israel at all. But we can accept a truce with them, and we can live side by side and refer all the issues to the coming generations."

The suspensions have sometimes - but not always - come to an end when Israeli forces launched their own attacks killing Hamas members.

Facing the electorate

The decision to stand in Palestinian elections has been a major departure for Hamas.

Top figures say it reflects the importance of the movement and the need for it to play a role in a failing Palestinian political sphere beset by corruption, inefficiency and lost credibility.

It has used Israel's Gaza withdrawal as a campaign platform.

However, mainstream groups like Fatah say the move signifies a de facto acceptance of the Oslo accords and recognition of Israel's right to exist - a characterisation that Hamas rejects.

But Hamas' armed wing remains the epitome of the "terrorist infrastructure" which the Palestinian Authority is called on to dismantle under the international peace plan known as the roadmap. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/1654510.stm

Published: 2006/01/26 10:29:37 GMT

© BBC MMVI

I'm sorry Zeq but I agree with Palmiro and Ramallite. Your alterations to the initial paragraph must be removed and immediately given the frequent access this page will have today and over the next few days. The quoted statement is rhetorical, hearsay, and POV. Simply allowing for the inclusion of other POVs is neither responsible nor appropriate in a Wiki introduction. See NPOV. I can think of hundreds of ways to state the organizations aim or intent of removing and replacing the Israeli government with one of their own that is not combative and laced with non-factual implication. The statement "wipe off the map" could be construed as one inclusive of the Israeli people and not simply targeted at the government. As someone who came here this morning looking for more information on Hamas, its origin and mission, such a statement was profoundly unhelpful to me and I'm sure to others who take the time to check their facts and corroborate their sources. Please do not revert the changes again until you have some form of primary documentation supporting this generalized powerfully worded intent of the organization as a whole. (ImagoDei 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

You have to complain to the Guardian. And the frequncy this aryicle may have is not the issue. If you have the opposing POV present it. This is the essence of NPOV. We are not a Primary source.

You fail to understand the essence of my complaint. It is the burden of the editor to provide evidence of their claim. The Guardian quotes a third party (not a member of Hamas) making such a statement about Hamas. This is what is called "hearsay" and can also be considered "speculation." It is not fact from a primary source, such as the leader of Hamas, a scholarly work on the subject of Hamas or more importantly their charter. This article being in the spotlight IS an issue because it reflects upon the Wikipedia project as a whole and the reliability of it as a source. The essence of NPOV is not to present all or sympathetic POVs, but to present a neutral, objective, and factual one with the least bias possible. Your understanding of this principle is incorrect. We are not a primary source but we should strive for the highest scholarly standards at all points. Your individual bias shows in this and many of your other edits and I would ask you to please find it within you to separate your emotions from your intellectual contributions. Please do not re-insert the line. I leave this post here for several hours hopefully to hear some consensus from the rest of the Wiki community. No one else objects to my removal of this line and so far several in fact agree with me. You have no right to force your opinion on others.

An Agnostic's opnion:

The fact of the matter is, That Israelis and Palestine both have a right to LIVE, and they are both occupying the same space so they both have a right to LIVE in that Space and no old books or rich western countries should dictate who gets to live where.

that is insane. We are all here now.

and now isn't 1948 and now isn't 40 bc. Now is 2006 And if there is a GOD,JEOVA,ALLA,JESUS,THOR,etc it doesn't look like he,it, is paying attention so we are going to have to solve this amongst ourselves, Humans.

I commend the Hamas for there honesty and all though they are vulgar violent 
 trouble makers at least they are honest, 

The IDFis almost as bad a terrorist group has the Hamas only they will

never admit it and have paperwork to back it up. 

and i commend them for there strength... maybe the hamases honesty and the IDF's strength is what the Palestine's and the Israel's need to forge into one to bring peace on that land

saying that every Jewish person over the age of 18 is a soldier is simply ridicules and is Hate talk.

Trying to justify the killing of innocents over the age of 18.

Nothing justifies killing. Not revenge, nor land or faith. Life is the one thing all religions see as sacred so if you believe in any of these 1000 year old scribblings

then you should honer the life that was given to you and your fellow man above all.

for we are Gods creations and the holiest on this planet more holly then any carved up stone. (carved by the hands of man not god)

so Break open the borders and let our fellow man mix, because that is the only way to end this conflict unite Palestine and Israel into one. so all will have a right to pray and its ancient city's.

---

I know very little of the rules of this forum as i am quite a beginner. I only have one comment. It seems to me after very superficial research that Hamas is a political organization with militant wings, which implies that not all Hamas members are militant. Rather, from their charter and western sources they are represented as a Islamic group interested first and foremost in the establishment of a theological Palestinian state. It is not for Wiki "posters" (if that is the used term) to decide that this implies the obliteration of Israel, or that it implies anythin other than the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian State. If there is clear evidence that Hamas is intent on renaming Israel, or nuking it, or whatever we are supposed to believe is meant by "taking Israel off the map" please post this source rather than the much too biased and un scholarly article in the Guardian. I thought it was a joke, the article's logic is poor, its sources are not firsthand and its manipulation of unreferenced information for the "humorous" recomendations at the end of the article are a proof of this article's bias. It seems to me that the comment on getting Israel off the map is an assumption we do not have the right of making. Do maintain this debate, there are plenty of sources which better point to a Hamas militance. I am concerned about the lack of scholarly support for Hamas on the internet, anybody know of the educated stance of Hamas?. Kobaincito 12/29/06

  Here's a source for you: Hamas Covenant 1988 (Traslation posted on Yale-lawschool website)
  http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm 
  In case you haven't heard of Yale, it is a rather well known and trusted academic institute. 
  Yale is not an Israeli-affiliated establishment, nor does it has a tendancy to serve the 
  interests of Israel. The traslation referred to is work of academic researchers.
    PS1 - note the many instances of "Jews" in the covenant; Hamas has an issue with more than 
          just "Israelis". Does this kind of reference to "Jews" remind you of anything?
    PS2 - the date on your post is from the future (December 2006) - can you please share the 
          secrets of time travel with the rest of us here on Wikipedia.
                                                                        Skywalker 2/11/06

Hamas-PLO relations

Could someone please add some information on Hamas-PLO relations, with the Palestinian Authority and with Fatah in general? It helps give context on the role of Hamas in the Palestinian struggle. 66.166.247.162 18:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Jason

Propagandist?

Other nations, movements and companies all use public relations firms to bolster their image, why would it be any different for Hamas? I changed the term 'propagandist' to 'PR firm'.

It was "Spin Doctor" before. . .

Soon the Spin Doctors will join Wikipedia. Zeq 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

But it is obvious spin doctors are here. Anyone interested in making political points in defense of a favorite country or ideology or ethnic affinity - at the expense of the truth - is a spin doctor. If I had to cite a single example of what is wrong with Wikipedia, I would point to this one, and the inability of Wikipedia to cope with the constant deletes and edits by a handfull of fanatical ideologues whose two-fold agenda - demonizing Hamas at any cost and deleting any contributions that present Hamas in two-dimensional, honest light - prevents this article from being even remotely useful. [User:anomalous]]

Spin Doctor is considered an acceptable term in the UK, though parties don't use the term to refer to their own people, they do for those of the other parties.

Spin is a perjorative term. As such, the comment seems to be overly POV. Justin Eiler 14:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hamas forms new government in Palestine

We'll need some information on Hamas winning the election. When I added this information it was subsequently deleted by Pecher with this as the reason "removed anonymous unsourced POV edit on government". I didn't bother to souce it because it is being carried by every major new organization in the world today. I guess Pecher just believes this is a conspriacy theory happening. Please check any large newspaper in the world first before deleting truth.

So something that represents Hamas as being the new democratically elected representative government of the Palestinian people is in order. Correct me if this isn't the case, i.e. if they were not elected by the Palestinian people. Your personal wish they were not elected is not part of our reality here.

Actually, your statement at the time made was incorrect and merely speculation. Official election results are not reported until 48hrs after the close of polls. A statement should not be made until that time. I believe preliminary results were not even announced until noon EST. Simply because newspaper's say it does not make it true. Also, your wording was flawed. Something along the lines of "ruling political party" or "majority" etc, would be more appropriate. In the U.S., simply because the Republican Party has control over the Senate and Presidency, we do not term it officially the "Republican Government" or something similar. I know that in some Parliamentary systems terms such as conservative or liberal government are used, but I do not feel this is applicable in the case of Fatah vs. Hamas. Finally, the way you phrased it was repetitive which is at least stylistically not good, and at best biased in favor of overrepresenting or over emphasizing the "democratic" nature of their rise to power. I agreed with Pecher's edit at the time. (ImagoDei 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

Actually I have to say that your statement about the "goverment" is wrong Imago, I often hear our current goverment in the United States refered to as the "Republican Goverment" or "the Conservative Goverment" as well as the "Bush Administration" etc. it's common and although you may not agree unilateral editing is not the answer in this case, disucssion is.

You make no logical comparison or assault on any of the statements I made, the least of which is the controlling statement regarding timeframe. I said officially. What is often heard (and I made allowance for this in my statement) is not what appears in the introduction to an encyclopedic entry. Hamas is now the ruling party, their members occupy the seats of government, but Hamas is not the government. Do not make the mistake of equivocation. Unless the entire structure of government is replaced or changed, it is not considered a change in the overall government, merely which party's policies are controlling. We do not refer to the conservative government in the U.S. with a capital C, I was referring to Canada's recently elected Conservative Party. The Palestinian government was not previously oficially referred to as the Fatah government. Fatah Movement or other times would be more applicable. Terms like Bush Administration are not at all parallel to the statement you inserted. Also, the President is not a member of Hamas. Your unilateral edit was incorrect on multiple levels and I almost took the action Pecher did. If it is still not clear, I am happy to continue to point out why I agreed and still agree with Pecher's edit. (ImagoDei 23:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

Not everything revolves around the US. Palestine is based on a parliamentary system such as Canada where it is very common to say 'The Liberal Government' where the word 'Liberal' is a political party in Canada (i.e. the 'Liberal' party). So maybe instead of saying 'government' in this article saying, 'The Hamas Government' would be more exacting?

I believe 'Hamas Led Government' is appropriate, but as it is not in a formal coalition with Fatah - 'Hamas Government' may suffice. I could be wrong but this is what the media would say in New Zealand (also a parliamentary democracy). However, the level of power enjoyed by the president of the palestinian state (much higher than most other parliamentary democracies, including Israel, where the president has no real power) and the fact that the president is a member of Fatah would complicate matters.

Lock this Article down.

This is getting out of hand.

I read today about the election. I wanted to come to a trusted source of information. I came to wikipedia only to find this article under attack by propagandist.

You mean lock it down after your changes are made? You shouldn't come to Wikipedia for minute by minute information unless you expect some churn. There is a thread (right above this one) that deals with the election play by play if you want to add something.

Hamas Charter

I suggest we get rid of the charter section entirely: It's a waste of space to include giant chunks of the organization's founding charter in what is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia article. If people think it's necessary to mention the charter, it can probably be summarized in a paragraph. We can link to the Avalon Project's full translation of the charter (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm) at the bottom, in the external links section...jackbrown 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[13] talks about the manifesto of the Hamas party not the organization. The Hmasa charter was not changed, and it's spokepeople repeated that it will not be changed. For the Election, they formed a party called "Change and Reform" that did not include on it's party platform ("manifesto") the call to anihilate Israel in teh name of Islam. However, on the day the election were over some Hamas Cheifs started to call the party "Change Reforem and Resistence" - to those who understand Arabic that sais it all. Zeq 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This guy Zek is totally out of control. What is the point of contributing ANYTHING to Wikipedia if one obsessed zionist fanatic can delete everything?

And as attached as we are to the 'remove Israel from the map' phrase, I think it should be removed in it's present form because this footnote was a VERBAL quote from the former wheelchair bound leader who Israel assasinated. It is not the stated goal of the democratically elected government of Palestine.

This article is not about the Palestinian goverment. Hamas stated golas are spelled out clearly in it's charter. Zeq 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

--Zeq, this is like insisting that the only discusable goals of the US are those spelled out in the Monroe Doctrine. Countries and movements and ideologies grow and change and adapt, and Hamas is no exception. For years its leaders have been making this important pragmatic distinction between Israel and the occupied territories and the different nature of the struggle as it pertains to each of these. You can keep deleting every single reference I post that makes this assertion, but it does nothing to further to truth to blindly insist, all evidence to the contrary, that the goal of Hamas is only, or simply, or in any meaningful sense, the destruction of Israel. It is you who are attempting not to rewrite history, but to negate it. The qworld does not have to conform to your adamant desire to see hamas as a one-dimensionally evil anti-semitic hate group. anomalous

I try to keep this as an encyclopedia and not a blog of how you see Hamas. Why don't wait 2-3 days, see where hamas is heading and at that time edit this artyicle. You can use the time to learn how Wikipedia works. It has rulls and ways of doing things. For example you can sign your name after you make a comment so that people will know who said what. Zeq 20:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

ZEQ - I would say the same. This is not your personal blog. please stop using your own evident personal contempt for Hamas to obstruct others from filling out the one-dimensional parody you are insisting on presenting. Anomalous

Zeq, are you saying that Hamas has nothing to do with being the government of Palestine? I suggest turning on the tv to see otherwise, or reading any major newpaper to see otherwise.

I am saying that this an article about Hamas. They won the election. They have not yet took power. Don't assume you can rewrite all of history. This is NOT you flog. Zeq 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The only way to turn "what currently is the state of Israel" into islamic theocracy is by destoying Israel first, of course there is a peacefull conversion through persuasion, which Hamaz doesn't seem to be doing. Also, that Hamas has been elected to the government of Palestine, doesn't make it any less antagonistic towards Israel, it is actually more reflective of Palestenians who voted for them. Jeffsnill, January 26, 2006 at 20:09:35 UTC

If you look at the entry for the likud party there is no mention that they have "as their stated goal" the destruction/abortion of palestine and the forcible removal or murder of it's inhabitants. All there is is a meak little reference to how most of it's members support "settlements." Although there are no out and out lies on this page there is clearly a heavy slant against hamas--the "destruction of israel is their stated goal" is talking point #1 for zionists(israeli imperialists) and zionist apologists. It's sad, because there could be a interesting analysis of hamas here.Lampajoo 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And the connection to this article is ... Please feel us in. This is the Hamas page. The Hmas charter is a fundemntal part in their idology. The Hamas won 76/132 seats in the palestinian parliment. Likud has about 12/120 (was 40/120) from the israeli knesset. Likud Prime minister has removd Gaza settlments so if you want to talk about Likud go to that article. At least one good thing I can tell you: You will not find me there. I could not care less about Likud. Zeq 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I only brought up the likud to illustrate the level of bias HERE. Compare and contrast.Lampajoo 15:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with first comment. Charter should certainly be quoted, extensively if really need, but isn't that too much, especially since there's a wikisource link to read the whole text? It only makes a subsection which quick readers skip, instead of reading a quick, well-done (not more than one short paragraph) resume of the Charter. Don't worry, everybody knows Hamas is an Islamic group and against Israel! Tazmaniacs

If you want a section on the Hamas Charter, that section has to be a summary of what the Hamas Charter contains. Instead, what we have here is a selection of quotes meant to push a certain arguement, that being that Hamas does not recognize Israel. There are two options which can be taken to make this section NPOV. The article needs to be rewritten or expanded such that it accurately graps ALL of the Charter, with references not only to its policies towards Israel, but its social and economic policies and ambitions as well. Since the majority of Hamas' efforts are directed to domestic efforts and not terrorist activities, those aspects of its charter should not be shoved aside. The other option of course is to provide the link to the charter which can easily be read by anyone remotely interested in the document. I'd opt for the second, since a comprehensive and NPOV summary of the charter would consume alot of space, despite not being really necessary in an encyclopedic entry. Amibidhrohi 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Anomalous

This is not your blog. or flog.

You want to claim that Hamas no longer want the destruction of Israel 0- fine, propese this change here in talk, discuss it with other editors, don't call them names like zionist (or mad zionist) and we can move on. You are new so learn the rules. Zeq 19:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anomalous, you are new so I will not hold it against you. You can not write things like "as of ... apear etc." this is an encyclopdia. You don't put in the first paragrpah your thoughts. This is not a Blog of Flog. Please change it back and discuss changes here. Zeq 20:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, why should I bother changing anything back? You have already - virtually instantly - deleted many times over any changes I have ever made, any links I have provided, any quotes from Hamas leaders I have offered to challenge or flesh out your one-dimensional account of this complex and changing group. Every contribution i have ever made has been completely nullified by you and in its place you reinstate your mantras about Hamas and the destruction of Israel. User:Anomalous

No. Not my Mantra. Hamas mantra. Why don't you listen to them. This is a sensitive time and I hope they will indeed change but you can not take election promises. let's wait and see. The test will be in officialy changing the charter 9so far they did not) and in their actions. Zeq 21:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember that while Hamas is a very religious organization, there is a very religious reason why an Islamic group would want Israel. Jerusalem is sacred to them as well. Personally, I think that there is some way to negotiate things, but I don't live there so I can't speak for them. It is possible that this area is not negotiable. In either case, it is not the United States' business who won in a democratic election. It is our business if our allies are attacked by another country as a whole, which has yet to even be threatened by the new political leaders themselves. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.

Zeq, you need to respond to my points regarding your quotation from the Guardian. "It is their stated goal to...." etc... is simply NOT true in the manner you try to represent it. I do not agree with personal attacks, but you are representing yourself as a Zionist with little interest in objective truth. Please respond to the point that the point the Guardian makes is not first hand corroboration, but rather a reference by a third party in a secondary source. The burden of proof is on you. See my statements above in the original discussion regarding your edits. You are simply not responding to criticism in a rational fashion. Whether this is by choice or through lack of comprehension of what that Guardian article actually states, you need to take responsibility for your actions and stop unilaterally overruling the majority on this topic. The statement is inciting rhetoric not representative of Hamas' aims. You can say that "Hamas leaders have been known to call for wiping Isreal off the map" or something similar, but do not generalize these statements beyond the individual. I do not want to elevate this to the process of dispute resolution but you have so far been completely nonresponsive. (ImagoDei 22:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

For some reason, I'm getting an impression that ImagoDei is partial towards Zionists. Of course if you think Zionists are people “with little interest in objective truth”, and overall is a derogatory term, that would be ok. This, however, would cast a shadow on ImagoDei’s own objectivity. Jeffsnill January 26, 2006 at 22:42:52 UTC

I read that like 3 times and don't get it. I don't think you said what you meant to. Oops! (ImagoDei 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

ImagoDei, you are using Zionist as a bad word, it's as if I said, you are acting like an Arab with little interest in objective truth. That shows that you apparently don't like Zionists, hense your POV.--Jeffsnill 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But then I'd be partial AGAINST Zionists, which is not what you said. But since you clarified; my statement was made in the context of the derrogatory fashion the term was used earlier, recognizing its insulting intent but not replicating it. I do not represent myself as anything, but representing yourself as a Zionist (regardless of positive or negative connotations of the term) is inappropriate in the context of Wikipedia. Personal views should not influence the edits made to an article. If you'd read my posts carefully, you would see that I am attempting in fact to mask my overwhelming bias toward and support for Israel against organizations like Hamas by treating Hamas as fairly and objectively as possible. I believe the only responsible way to regard an organization so negatively is to give them every benefit of the doubt. My personal bias would actually support the inclusion of the slandering statements against Hamas. (ImagoDei 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

POLL: Its stated goal is to "remove Israel from the map"

It is my contention this statement is simply wrong, rhetoric with inherent bias, POV, and the source used is hearsay and speculative. It is not a statement made by an individual with first hand knowledge, but rather one made by a third party non-member of Hamas about what people in Hamas may have said in the past. This does not constitute a stated goal of an organization. Zeq has continually reverted this claim against several editors protests. I ask that people contribute their opinion as to whether or not this line is appropriate. I state that it needs to be removed and quickly. It should simply state that their goal is an islamic theocracy occupying isreal, west bank, etc.... Wiping or removing from the map while the result of actually instituting an islamic theocracy is political rhetoric not relevant to encyclopedic entry. It is the logically necessary effect of their stated goal, but not actually their stated goal. This is an important distinction to make. Please vote. (ImagoDei 22:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

I guess on balance I agree that giving this statement such top and repeated billing is probably needlessly inflammatory, or needlessly buying into Hamas's most florid oratory, rather than the organization's real goals, which are certainly more limited. Like all parties of its ilk, it seeks to Islamize society (whatever that means in an overwhelmingly muslim context), and its specific case, also seeks to resist the Israeli occupation. The wiping Israel from the map stuff is, as everyone involved actually knows, just rhetoric to make the masses happy. Hamas is at some point going to settle down and settle for the Green Line borders, as its leaders have endlessly hinted. So I guess on balance I agree with ImagoDei that we should either get rid of it or at least downgrade the statement's hysterical and repeated top billing.jackbrown 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What ImagoDei calls "logically necessary effect of their stated goal" is in fact a goal that was stated implicitly. It’s like saying Jack only stated that he wants to blow Joe’s brains out, so we cannot say that he actually wants to kill Joe, because “It is the logically necessary effect of their stated goal, but not actually their stated goal.” Another example of Hamas making statements supporting this goal is their targeted attacks on the Israeli civilians. Jeffsnill Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 22:20:23 UTC

Jeffsnill, for now I'll accept your statement regarding the implicit nature of this result. Two definitions: 1) Stated: declared: declared as fact; explicitly stated. 2) Implicit: Implied though not directly expressed; inherent in the nature of something. These were found using "definition ______" on Google where _____ is "stated" or "implicit". The line Zeq repeatedly re-inserts claims to represent the explicit stated goals, not implications or results. There is thus an unavoidable logical contradiction and the line should be removed.

Also, your analogy is not sound as "blowing brains out" is a destructive process as is "killing." However, the statement "establish an islamic theocracy" is creative whereas "remove from the map" is destructive. Analogies must have parallel structure. Yours does not. While Hamas' policies on what conduct is possible in pursuit of its goals leaves no question as to their ability to cause destruction, to misrepresent their stated goals is to slander an organization that is already reprehensible in the strongest possible terms. This is irresponsible, erroneous, and clearly the work of bias. Finally, I do not agree that their tactics qualify as "statements" regarding their goals and your qualification of it as such demonstrates your POV. As above these are implicit not explicit. Furthermore, to us it is terrorism, to them it is war against those who have taken from them. This is a topic on which we must tread lightly. (ImagoDei 23:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

ImagoDei, That Hamas is not using exact wording that you wish them to, doesn’t make it any less explicit. Likewise you can say that Hamas doesn’t wish to “establish an Islamic theocracy in Israel”, because they don’t have a phrase “establish an Islamic theocracy in Israel” written in their charter, but instead it is all written in Arabic, and whatever you translated in English is only an inference based on the equivalence of the English and Arabic terms. And such equivalence is not one-to-one and can also be disputed.

Your assertion about establishment of the Islamic theocracy in the Jewish state being a “creative process” is not valid, as such establishment would require a prior destruction of the state of Israel. I could agree with you if Hamas was trying to establish an Islamic theocracy by proselytizing Islam among the Israelis. This, however, is clearly not the case. Hamas is engaged in murder of innocent civilians, quite destructive process, I’d say. It also betrays your POV, turning Jewish stat into Islamic may be called creative by islamist, but destructive by jewists. I can modify the analogy, Jack doesn’t want to kill Joe (in any destructive fashion), he only wants to ESTABLISH (don’t you like the euphemism) a bullet in his brain.

Also, the fact that terrorists think that what they are doing is right (war against those who have taken from them) doesn’t make them any more right. As most common criminals think that they do what they think is right.--Jeffsnill 23:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If most common criminals believed what they were doing to be right, they would not be able to be convicted and instead would be institutionalized under a plea of insanity on the basis of inability to differentiate between right and wrong. Criminals know what is right and wrong, they just often choose to ignore that.

I am not making any argument in regard to Hamas' wording, I am making the argument against Zeq's wording. His wording is inaccurate and incorrect in this language, english, his complete comprehension of which I am not convinced. Establish an Islamic theocracy is not a sourced quotation. It is a paraphrase or interpretative statement. Zeq insists on the use of a quotation that is NOT FROM Hamas. However, it is positioned in such a way as though it appears to be. This is misleading and why the implict/explicit is relevant.

As Anamolous posted below, that is not actually true and many Hamas leaders would be happy with 1967 borders and locations. Hamas chooses targets indescriminantly because of Israel's mandatory conscription. Furthermore, arguments regarding the use of total war could be made as well, but I am not here to get into an argument about their tactics. I agree they are abhorrent and their violent approach needs to change. However, that does not justify making simply false statements about them. "Engaged in the murder of innocent civilians" is POV so stop trying to read into my statements. You, as demonstrated in the section above, have completely missed where my sentiments lie. You once again miss the point of the errors I point out in your logical statements. There is no direct benefit to Jack by having the bullet in Joe's head. But there is a direct benefit to Hamas of having an Islamic theocracy. Creative/destructive may not have been the clearest way to state it because you missed the importance of the link to the initiator of the action. You are once again changing the paradigm to focus the perspective on outcome or effects. You must keep your perspective immobile throughout the entire analogy. If this is not clearer, look up logic and the relevant ensuing links. I may be missing something but I need to run to a screening. More later if you'd like. Also, stop thinking of me as an islamist radical. It won't get you anywhere, I'm from New York and a staunch supporter of the Israeli state, I am simply smart enough not to let those emotions influence my intellectual assessments.

Your assertion about criminals is simply not true. No reputable resource defines insanity as inability to differentiate between right and wrong. If criminals thought that doing a crime is wrong they wouldn’t be committing it. They may think that it’s wrong for someone else to commit it, but it is certainly right for them to. The is what the whole concept of “Justification” or “Excuse” is all about. Any criminal can find an excuse. Why did you rob that 7-eleven? Because I really needed the money, that’s why I deserved it, that’s why it was right. (In general stealing is wrong, but look at my complicated childhood, my life’s hardships, and those big rich capitalists owning 7-eleven corporation, if not for them my life probably wouldn’t be as miserable). Why did you beat up your wife? Because she's a bitch, and as such she deserved to be beaten up, that's why it was right for me to beat her up. Why Why did Nazis have to murder 6 million Jews? Because they were destroying Arian nation and stealing money, that’s why getting rid of them was a right thing to do. Yes, in general murder is wrong, but murdering Jews is right.

Wording is also ok, because, actions speak louder then words. Whatever ambiguity exists about the official pronunciation of Hamas’ goals, it is clarified by their acts of murder of Israelis. Likewise, no official charter of Nazis called for Gassing and Burning of Jews, it just happened to be something that they did. Hamas may be careful in its official statements, but they action leave very little room for interpretation.

“Engaged in the murder of innocent civilians” accurately describes Hamas. Since they murder innocent civilians (I don’t know what else to add here). The fact that Israel has a mandatory general conscription is irrelevant, they are still innocent civilians. Unless you are talking about “Minority Report”-style executing criminals before they have committed a crime, on this even Stephen Spielblerg would disagree with you. AND you will have to assume that every conscripted Israeli is commiting a crime against Palestenian(s).

Also you have a concept of tactics/goal totally upside down. Getting rid of Israelis is Hamas’ goal, not tactic--Jeffsnill 01:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am done discussing this with you. I provided you ample opportunity to argue logically, rationally and state your points. You are compelled by your emotions, simply being difficult, or stupid. No matter which, you are resorting to an 8th grade understanding of sophisticated concepts and I will not be drawn down to your level. You have no concept of criminal action, no understanding of logic, and no comprehension of the situation. Your assessment of criminal behavior is uneducated and uninformed. Criminals usually consider their actions to be morally wrong, but are compelled to them for many of the reasons you stated. This does not make them right in their minds. Actions do not speak louder than words when you are discussing what a group states it does. You separate the two, Hamas says this vs. Hamas does this. No one claims the Nazi party stated its intention was to kill all jews, instead we say the NSDAP attempted in its later years a final solution to what it considered the "Jewish Question." This was extermination. Finally, it is by no means Hamas' goal to kill all Jews which you basically stated in your last line. It is their goal to create a government occupying certain lands. I doubt they care what happens either way to the Jewish people. If they do, it is only in so much as they are angry with the Western imposition of rule. Simply, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have not successfully opposed or even comprehended a single point I have made. Goodluck, unless someone sources the quote from the co-founder of Hamas, I'm deleting it tomorrow morning. (ImagoDei 05:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Ok, I’m skipping the first 6 sentences, as pure ad hominem. Criminals do think that what they do is right, what you call “compelling reasons” is essentially their way of justification of their actions. Nazis knew that murder is wrong, so in order to legitimize murder of Jews they had to declare them all lower race/parasites. Hamas does the same thing. They know that murder is wrong, but in order to legitimize murder of all Israelis (young and old, man and women) they are all labeled occupiers of the Palestinian land, where, of course, the Palestinian land is the very land on which they live. It’s kind of like Jack saying that murder, in general, is wrong, except in the case of my neighbor Joe, who thinks that he lives in his own house, but he actually lives in my house.

The peace will come when Palestinians realize that murder is always wrong, even with Israelis. (I’m skipping the rest of your ad hominem)

If you think that words are more important than actions here’s a simple test for you: If you had a choice, would you prefer that someone speaks badly to you, or acts badly towards you?Jeffsnill 09:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

folllowing posted by Anomalous

Hamas leaders, including its most prominent ones such as Rantisi and Yassin, have made offers of an indefinate, decades long truce with Israel in echange for a complete end of Occupation. This is not consistent with the claim that their goal is to wipe Israel off the map. It is instead consistent with a pragmatic organization which is sticking in principle to the fundamental RIGHTNESS and justice of their cause while effectively abandoning pursuit of those goals which they feel are not practically attainable. In 1987 and again in 1989 Sheikh Yassin stated "I do not want to destory Israel...We want to negotiate with Israel so the Palestinian people inside and outside Palestine can live in Palestine. Then the problem will cease to exist." (Interview, Al-Nahar (Jerusalem, 30 April 1989. Quoted in Abu Amr, Islamic Fundamentalism, p. 76.)

In March 1988 Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar explicitly told Shimon Peres in a personal meeting that an Israeli withdrawl to the 1967 borders would be followed on Hamas' part by a permanent negotiated settlement. He told the same thing to then Defense Minsiter Rabin in June 1989.

Hams political Bureau leader Abu Marzuq released an official statement on behalf of Hamas in early 1994 reiterating Yassin's offer. This offer has been consistently reaffirmed since 1994 by Yassin, Ismail Abu Shanab, Mahmoud Zahhar, Abdel-aziz Rantisi, Osama Hamdan, Hasan Yusif and others.

In October 2002, Rantisi, before his assassination by israeli death squad, stated "The intifada is about forcing Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries." He added that "this doesn't mean that the Arab-Israeli conflict will be over" but that its military component would end.

Hamdan said, on August 22, 2003, that "Hamas is clear in terms of the historical solution and an interim solution. We are ready for both: the borders of 1967, a state, elections, an agreement after 10-15 years of building trust."

When asked what Hamas would do if the Palestinian people clearly and definitively supported a 2-state solution on the 1967 borders, Zahhar said: "Hamas will never go against the will of the Palestinian people." (Interview at UNSCO HQ, Gaza City, May 19, 2002).

Hamas is clear that they do not accept Israel's demand that they affirm that Israel has any kind of "right" to any portion of Palestine. But basically what Hamas offers, after an end to occupation, is an agreement to not stand in the way of other parties resolving the conflict through a two-state solution. This is entirely consistent with the international consensus on how to resolve this conflict.

-- posted by user Anomalous, whose every attmepted addition or alteration to this article has been instantly deleted by Zeq.

---

• To Anomalous: Look again, in many places where you tried to compromise I reciprocated. do you need specific links to your own edit that are still in the article despite your claim that they are gone ? I also offered compromises myself in hope you will play along. You can not turm an encyclopedia into your own one side biased blog/flog.

• To ImagoDei: I fail to see what you are "polling" about. The hmas golas are spelled out clearly in it's charter: To remove Israel and replace it with an Islamic theocarcy. One in the Guardian described it "wipe Israel off the map" - this is the quote. If you think it is wrong complain to the guardian (a pro-plaestinina paper) If you think there are other POV - feel free to source andpresent them.

Zeq 10:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• TO ZEQ - ImagoDei does not need to source other POVs because i have already done that extensively. I have provided many quotes, much more reliable than the one you provide, which is a "so-and-so-says that supposedly Rantisi once said on the radio". That is a completely inappropriate reference to be using in the way you do. How would you like me to have a quote in the intro paragraph to the article on Israel in which it says the goal of israel is to extreminate the Palestinians, because someone claims that he once heard Moshe Dayan saying that at a dinner party 30 years ago? This is the equivalent of what you are doing. Immediately above here are many quotes from Rantisi and others which completely contradict the one you beliggerently insist on inserting over and over into this article. There is one from Sheikh Yassin himself saying "I do not want to destory Israel...We want to negotiate with Israel so the Palestinian people inside and outside Palestine can live in Palestine. Then the problem will cease to exist." This is the exact opposite of the claim you insist on making. Your determination to demonzie HAMAS is preventing this article from approaching anythign near honesty or credibility or partiality. You keep saying "where's the proof" - it's righ tin fornt of your eyes, but you not only refuse to look, you are preventing anyone else from seeing by constantly deleting everything but the phantasmagorically evil boogeyman version of Hamas which you insist on imposing on this article. anomalous

Anomalous, Gardian is a newspaper of a record, not so and so. Whatever ambiguity may exist about Hamas’ motives, they disappear when they murder innocent civilians. Jeffsnill 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

While hamas definitely has killed civilians they aren't necessary innocent civilians. Can we do without the unintellectual "these people are evil and these people are completely good" talk? Also, how does killing people remove ambiguity from someone's motives? Given that terrorism is violence which is committed not for it's own sake but for the psychological effect that it has on others it's not as easy to analyze the intentions of terrorists as other practioners of violence. If someone kills someone in a robbery then it's pretty clear what their intention was, but not in this case.Lampajoo 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you wrote that the victims "hamas killed aren't .. innocent civilians" I will knowingly break a wikipedia rule and comment on you instead of what you wrote. You know what ? In a second thought, I will not break this policy and just say: that this is an evil statment to say something like this on innocent school children or families in a pizze place that are murdred by a terrorist. I have nothing more to say to you if you can not even acokowledge that hamas killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Zeq 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be just as accurate to say that hamas' stated goal is to return Palestine to it's historical position of being under moslem control. This would also be much more illuminating to the entire situation since it explains why hamas cares so much. Or perhaps it could be said that, "hamas' stated goal is the removal of jewish colonists from the levant." Lampajoo 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Lampajoo, First of all there is nothing "unintellectual" about good and evil. In fact, denying the existance of the good in evil is unintellectual. Murdering innocent civillians removes ambiguity from Hamas' motive because they are not doing it by accident, they are trying to murder as many Israelis as possible. Your analogy with robbery is poor, because robber steals to get his loot. Hamas are killing people to kill people. Jeffsnill 06:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a two parter :)

1) I suspect you may have misunderstood the good-evil point. I don't belive that Lampajoo meant that ethical discussions were unintellectual but rather that comparmentalising the world into bits that are either good or evil is unintellectual. Hamas has done good things (e.g. welfare program) and evil things (e.g. killing lots of people). They have also done things that could be argued to be good or evil depending on your point of view (e.g. call for a religious state). In order to say whether Hamas is good or evil overall requires a judgment call and at that point it is impossible to make a logical argument since fact value cannot give a fact.

2) The problem with using terms like 'innocent civilians' is that it implies there are non-innocent ones (which begs the further question of what they are innocent of? Theft? Murder? Parking violations?). If you mean non-military then 'innocent civilians' becomes something of a tautology (i.e. they were non-fighters that were innocent of fighting). There is little to be gained by using loaded terms except in winding people up. If people were blown up while standing at a bus stop or children were killed just say so and leave the judgment to the reader and they will get the point!. Slinky Puppet 18:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of the fact HAMAS run hospitals and schools?

Why no mention of the fact HAMAS run hospitals and schools? this is the most biased article on wikipedia at the moment. hamas run schools and hospitals in palastine, they are a political wing.

Hospitals and schools to Hamas are what Volkswagen and Autobahns to Nazis. Surely those were the good things that they have initiated, but they are not they main source of their “popularity”.--Jeffsnill 23:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The analogy is deplorable. On what basis do you make that claim? Even most Israeli experts on this subject would not make such outrageous assertions. --Anomalous

Anomalous, I'm not sure what you meant by the word "Even" when applied to Israeli experts. Are you saying that "....Even <the stupidest and ignorant> Israeli experts ...." ? Because if you do, it sounds like POV.--Jeffsnill 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffsnill, are you joking? First, usually whenever anyone brings the Nazis into an analogy, we all end up stupider for it. Second, to not realize that those are most likely the reason for their recent political victory is simple ignorance. No one in Palistine likes the helicopter missile strikes that inevitably follow suicide bombings. Troll somewhere else. This is a valid question regarding the completeness and perspective of the article. (ImagoDei 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

To your first point - no we don't end up stupider. Your second statement about the helicopter missle strikes is a non-sequitur. Third betrays your emotions, and to the last one I have responded, in my initial responce that you didn't like--Jeffsnill 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of theory about the use of Nazi analogies on the internet? Anyway, yeah, that is BS. Total shite. Joe 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone with the "real" intelligence --Jeffsnill 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The following quote is from Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela: "Hamas is a movement identified with Islamic fundamentalism and murderous suicide bombings. [...] It is this Islamic viison, combined with its nationalist claims and militancy towards Israel, that accounts for the prevailing image of Hamas as an ideologically intransigent and poltiically rigid movement, ready to pursue its goals at any cost, with no limits or constraints. [...] A close scutiny of Hamas' roots and its record since its establishment at the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in December 1987, however, reveals that contrary to this description, it is esssentially a social movement. As such, Hamas has directed its energies and resources PRIMARILY (my emphasis) toward providing services to the community, especially responding to its immediate hardships and concerns." (Mishal & Sela, "The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, violence & coesitence", Columbia University Press, 2000). Mishal is a professor of Political Science at Tel Aviv University and Sela is professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace, at the Hebrew Univerity of Jeruselem. Shaul Mishal in particular is generally accepted as being among the world's foremost authorities on HAMAS. What are YOUR qualifications for asserting that (a) "Hospitals and schools to Hamas are what Volkswagen and Autobahns to Nazis" and (b) "these good things that they have initiated they are not they main source of their “popularity”? -- posted by [[User::Anomalous]]

This all would sound very impressive, except for the fact that Hamas also murders innocent civilians. Likewise you can dig up a pile of professors who would like to focus on the grass-roots campaign of the Nazis in prewar Germany. The usage of the word “primary” may only be indicative of how they allocate their effort, without focusing on their murderous nature. Similarly one could say that Mafia is “primarily” concerned with running whatever business it is running, and murder is just something that happens every now and then.

I’m not sure if your “qualifications” question is relevant, since I am only stating the obvious facts. Hamas murders innocent civilians, and the fact that they care about Palestinian infrastructure, well ... that’s very cute ... --Jeffsnill 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The government of Israel, unlike Hamas, DOES in fact murder civilians on a daily basis. Upwards of 3,500 Palestinian civilians have been killed in the last 2,000 or so days, and more than ten times that numbe rof civilians wounded. Would you accept that Wikipedia talk about Israel in the way that you are now talking about Hamas? Simply based on Israel's track record of targeting civilians, it would certainly be far more appropriate than what you are saying about Hamas, which has in FIVE YEARS carried out a total of 58 suicide bombings. You need to suspend your personal malice and try to look at this matter objectively. User: Anomalous

Great, this page is now turning into HAMAS propaganda piece. Why don'tyou stop playing with numbers and read Hamas covenant. They murder Israelis - the more the merrier - to make what they call Palestine (a never-existed country with undefined borders), Judenfrei. That is why they kill Israelis wherever they can find them, including pizerrias, schoolbuses and discos. The IDF on the other hand, performs the role of the police (instead of the PNA, unwilling to keep their own committments under the Oslo and the Roadmap) to prevent more murders. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel is not targeting Palestenian civilians. It is something they are trying to avoid at all costs. If they wanted to murder Palestinians, they could simply bomb them the WWII style, and have every Palestenian dead in couple of days. Hamas, on the other hand, is targeting Israeli civilians and that’s what makes them murderers.--Jeffsnill 01:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Understand how much POV there is in your statements, then come back. Both sides murder innocent people. Both sides do terrible things. Both need to learn to live in peace with eachother. Stop acting as though one is worse than the other. Objectively they're both atrocious and neither are going anywhere. Stop your rhetoric and propaganda. This is a place for facts. (ImagoDei 06:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

ImagoDei, the POV is in your statement. You would like to equate aggressors to their victims. As murder, by definition, assumes that you intend to kill someone who’s innocent. Israelis have no such intention. The only innocents that are killed by Israelis, are those who accidentally ended up in the line of fire. Similarly during the WWII there were a number of German civilians were accidentally killed by the American and British forces. It didn’t, however, make them murderers. (read more on Zeq’s note on Targeting).

This is why you cannot equate both sides, and say that they both do terrible things. The only terrible thing that Israel is doing is trying to defend herself.

The only side that has to learn how to live in peace with the other is Palestenians. For as soon as they stop blowing up Israelis, the Israelis will stop retaliating back at them, and there will be peace. So, ImagoDei, stop your rethoric and propaganda. This is a place for facts.--Jeffsnill 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ImagoDei about what both sides are doing. But there is an important fact:

What is each side Targeting

Israel has not delibertly target buses, resturants etc... Israel, like any other army in the world has, while fighting militants in the area of civilian population made various actions that resulted in killing of civilians. Some of those can be considered "war crimes" since they fail to protect civilians. But israel has not delibertly targeted buses and resturants and there is the difference, as well as in stated goals. Zeq 06:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So killing civilians with a suicide bomb is wrong but killing them with a rocket that was meant for a someone else who could have been simply arrested and convicted in court is ok? Lampajoo 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not ok, but it is not a murder, so long as you do everything possible to avoid innocent casualties.Jeffsnill 05:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

---

ABout the example of the US/UK collateral damage during WWii. The US was an imperial power seeking its fortune in colonizing the pacific. When the USSR won the war for them, the US, in a much better state for having barely fought the war pressed against the SOviet Union its colonial possesion of JApan and E. Germany. In any unbiased circle this is held as a pretty basic truth. It is only in the US that occupation can be equated as anything but imperialism. Similarly, the Israeli occupation of what was Palestinian land up until 1948 is another demonstration of colonialism, US colonialism through its ISraeli client state. It is no secret, and once again, only in anglo circles is occupation of a foreign territory excused as anything other than colonialism. Sadly, even the few individuals who have attempted the slow (but sure) way to truth, objectivity, by seeing both parties in equal terms and define diferences from there on, are being attacked as "propagandists". It is very sad that the small spectrum of thought allowed in the US has permeated into this wonderful site. Please remain open minded. The US likes to disprove comparisons with the Nazis (even though they steal land from many indigenous populations) because their bodycount is slightly lower than 6 mill. I suggest you use the same logic and compare Palestinian deaths by US missiles and bullets fired by the Israeli army to the deaths caused by individual suicide attacks. The terror is on the Israeli side, this is well known throughout the world, it is amusing to see once more US circles have a capacity for denying truths obvious to the world. Kobaincito

Vandalism

Can we get a "semi-protect" on this page to keep anons and new users from continually vandalizing it? Heck, I can't even keep up with reverts! Justin Eiler 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I fear the IP's listed on the page history. Another reason IP's shouldn't have the right to edit pages. We really have to keep an eye on this page.-Jersey Devil 00:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fable Tennis

Phew!

My brothers in Wiki, thank you all for writing such an athletic set of exchanges. I was gripped by your ability to lob, smash and grunt through many kB of text: a real five-set thriller! I had to save it locally so I can watch again when rain stops play. My only complaint, however, is that some of the rallies went on too long; perhaps no-one had the killer edge?

--die Baumfabrik 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here here. I want to shoot myself. (ImagoDei 06:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

You have thirty seconds...

The group is paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews. Yeah, I'm going to remove that in a few hours unless there's some really good reason why we should discuss a (quasi)-political organization's spin doctors in the opening sentences of the article. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is unencyclopedic.--68.211.68.122 13:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

based on Special:Contributions/68.211.68.122 this is a sockpuppet, of whom we can not tell now but he knows too much about wikipedia for this to be his 10th edit.

Disagree. Because those spin doctors may be on the internet (even right here in Wikipedia) trying to improve the organization image so it is good that the guardian exposed that and so should we show it . Zeq 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the concerns about people pushing an agenda on Wikipedia, Spin (public relations) is solely a perjorative term in English usage. If the phrase can be reworded without a perjorative connotation, I'd welcome re-adding the information, but with the insulting connotation, I can't see it as anything but POV. Justin Eiler 15:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "According to The Guardian, Hamas is engaging in an extensive media campaign to improve their image in European and American perceptions. [14]" Justin Eiler 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We should include it since the fact that Hamas is interested in its image in Europe and the US is relevant and helpful in understanding the group. Perhaps we should rewrite the sentence in a more encyclopedic way. We should also move the statement out of the 1st couple paragraphs. How about something like: "In January 2006, Hamas hired a media consultant to improve and soften its image in the West[15]. 67.176.232.105 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I care about susbstnce not the exact wording. Anyone who want to rephrase it is welcome. Zeq 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism category

What is Hamas' inclusion in this category based on? Whose opinion is this? Who is making this accusation? Why isn't it attributed? --68.211.68.122 13:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

While I agree that "anti-semitism" is not a very good word (because Arabs are also a Semitic people), it is the "standard" English word for hostility to the Jews as a race. (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Answers.com) And it must be acknowledged that Hamas does not agree with the Jewish State in the Middle East. In using the word "Anti-semitic," the article is not expressing an "opinion," but one of the peculiarities of the English language. Justin Eiler 13:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"It must be acknowledged that Hamas does not agree with the Jewish State in the Middle East". Opposition to Israel is not anti-semitism. Israel is a political entity. Most of the world is opposed to the existence of Israel and they are not anti-semitic. --68.211.68.122 13:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion that opposition to Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic. But being against Jewish people is anti-semitic. Hamas wants to remove the Jewish people from Arab lands, not just the Government. They are not alone in their anti-Semitic beliefs as any Jew who wants to visit Saudia Arabia can testify. Anti-Semitism is an appropriate and probably wouldn't be argued by 99% of Hamas members.

I am not referring specifically to the state of Israel: Hamas is opposed to ANY Jewish state anywhere in the Middle East. Indeed, it must be acknowledged that Hamas seems to be opposed to any Jewish presence in the Middle East. As such, "Anti-semitism" is accurate. Justin Eiler 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Justin, this is a specious argument and also factualyl incorrect. If you actually READ the Covenant instead of skimming the parts that Zionists continually quote to try to "prove" that Hamas is an anti-semitic movement, you would find, for example, Article 31, "The Islamic Resistance Movement Is A Humanistic Movement" under the grouping "Our attitudes towards followers of Other religions." This article unamibiguously states: "The Islamic Resistance Movement ... takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other." It makes extremely clear throughout the charter that the target of its animosity is not Jews as such, but Zionism, Zionists, and the Zionist state. Jews are invited to remain in Palestine under Islamic rule. anomalous

Sorry. I disagree. Opposition to a jewish state in the Arab world is not anti-semitism. It's just your opinion so I am removing the category. Advocating the destruction of the jewish people would be anti-semitism. Hamas does not advocate that. --68.211.68.122 14:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from "The Charter of the Hamas", Hamas (US) website:

For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah's victory prevails.

According to Hamas, they are indeed opposed to the Jews, not solely to the state of Israel. Therefore, I must reject your assertion that they are not anti-semitic, and will restore the category.

Peace be with you. Justin Eiler 14:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From an outside view, reading the definitions objection to Jewish people would be anti-Semitism while objection to a Jewish state would be anti-Zionism. What excatly does the Hamas charter say in regards to Jews living in the Middle East? Their position regarding a Jewish state is very clear, but I haven't seen any direct citations yet regarding their opinion on Jewish people in general. --StuffOfInterest 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just saw the quote from Justin which snuck in while I was editing. Based on that direct quote it would seem to put Hamas in there with anti-Semitism as they are referencing a battle against Jews in general rather than just Israel or a "Jewish state". --StuffOfInterest 14:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That quote - would it be "the Jews" as in "the Jews everywhere, in every nation on earth" or "the Jews, the ones we mentioned in the previous sentences and paragraphs, and really shouldn't have to spell out in full who exactly we mean in every single sentence, because in context its bloodly obvious we are talking about Israel, and its only when some prejudiced twat takes the sentence entirely out of context to deliberately make it apear biased that you get prejudiced bollocks" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.142.245 (talk • contribs) .

Note regarding category: At this point, any further reversions of the [[Category:Anti-Semitism]] would violate the 3 Revert Rule. It is not my intent, however, to impose the category by force: I would prefer to reach consensus with all involved, including the anonymous contributor 68.211.68.122, and invite a continuation of this discussion before any further edits are made. Justin Eiler 14:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Hamas' opposition to the state of Israel or any Jewish state on Muslim land is not anti-Semitic in and off itself. On the other hand their adoption of classic European anti-Semitic tropes such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (if this is correct, which off the top of my head I think it is) is enough to justify the category in my view. Palmiro | Talk 16:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone deny that Italians are a nation, work to destroy Italy, and all the while claim that he is not an enemy of the Italian people because he doesn’t hate all Italians? The question is obviously absurd. If you deny Italian nationhood and any Italian right s to their homeland, and seek to destroy Italy, no matter how sincerely you may claim to love some Italians, you are an enemy of the Italian people. The same holds true for those who deny Jewish nationhood and the Jews’ right to their state, and who advocate the destruction of Israel. Such people are enemies of the Jewish people, and the term for their attitudes, even when espoused by people who sincerely like some Jews, is anti-Semitism.Dennisdrager 17:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't hold, google "Jews Against Israel", here's one result: [16]
The reason for your analogy's fault is that Palestine is not the homeland of the jews, it's the homeland of the palestinians.
Guess who denied that Palestine is a nation?! Guess who was determined to destroy palestine and replace it with Israel?

Begging your pardon, but there is a considerable difference between "Jews against Israel" and "Jews against Zionism". Israel is a state: Zionism is a political ideology. To attempt to conflate the two is improper and grossly inaccurate. Justin Eiler 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, there is no point in us having the whole "is anti-Zionism equivalent to anti-Semitism" debate on this talk page. It is, to say the least, a highly disputed proposition and not one on the basis of which we can say Hamas is anti-Semitic while maintaining a neutral point of view. If the problem wiuth Hamas is that it rejects the state of Israel, then let's say that and people can conclude that that means they're anti-Semitic if they think that one implies the other.

However, there are other good reasons for saying Hamas is indeed anti-Semitic, which I don't think can be held to be merely matters of point of view or interpretation. Palmiro | Talk 22:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Zionism is the political ideology of Jewish nationalism that promotes the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. There is no such thing as an Israel without Zionism so the two are root and branch of one tree. Hamas is opposed to the Jewish occupation of Palestine. That doesn't make them anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is an irrational hatred for Jews based on their ethnicity. Anti-Israeli anti-Zionsim is a rational opposition to a political ideology that discriminates against non-Jews. the analogy is to apartheid. Those opposed to apartheid are not anti-white. They are anti-racism. People opposed to Zionism are not anti-Jewish, they are anti-racist. --68.214.58.46 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hamas wants to remove Jews from the land as well. If it was just the government you would be correct, but is the government plus the jews that Hamas detests. That is anti-Semitism and I bet 99% of Hamas members would agree that their goal is to remove Jews from Arab lands. Tbeatty

Zionism is one political ideology of Jewish nationalism that promotes the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. It is not the only political ideology that supports a state of Israel at its current location--thus your statement "There is no such thing as an Israel without Zionism so the two are root and branch of one tree" is without merit. It would be just as false to say that since Hamas has used violence against citizens (in violation of the Qur'an), all Palestinians are murtaddi.

Hamas has established that they are against the state of Israel--regardless of the political leanings (Zionist or not) of the Jews. Hamas has further used anti-semitic propaganda such as The Elder Protocols of Zion to propagate their message.

Hamas is not only against Zionism and Israel--Hamas is against the Jews. Justin Eiler 22:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You feel qualified to speak for Hamas now? Where does Hamas say they are against all Jews and not just against Israelis? Hamas is against the Jewish military occupation of Palestine, not against Jews per se. And your arguments that Jewish colonization of palestine can occur outside of Zionism is totally specious. Any movement that propounds a Jewish homeland in Palestine is by definition Zionist. --68.214.58.46 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The State of Israel was established according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan in the area where the Jews constituted a majority in a small part of the Jewish National Homeland, the Land of Israel where the Jews had a long history of sovereignty and self-determination. To insist that the Jews, of all nations, don't deserve to govern themselves, is to express prejudice or hostitity towards them, this is antisemitism. BTW, the "occupation" battlecry doesn't work anymore because HAMAS wants the entire land Judenfrei. "HAMAS is anti-racist", LOL! Why not list them under category humantiarians. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of getting involved in yet another ghastly recurrence of the whole "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic" v. "Zionism is racism" debate, let me just say that I'm not aware of Hamas objecting to the principle of the Jews governing themselves, as such. Their objection is to the alienation of Muslim lands, which according to their ideology can never be given over to non-Muslim rule. Obviously the consequence of this is opposition to the State of Israel - it would also imply opposition to a Christian state or a Druze state in the Middle East. And yes, this is a chauvinistic position from my point of view. But does it really constitute specifically anti-Jewish racism? In my opinion, Hamas is indeed anti-Semitic, but not on the grounds of its opposition to the existence of Israel.

More generally, (and apologies in advance for the tortured phrasing of this) would you agree with me that if I or you think that conclusion "x" follows naturally from observation "y", yet this assessment is widely disputed, an objective and fact-based approach is better served by simply stating observation "y" and leaving it to the reader to draw conclusion "x" or not, according to his own views? Or applied to this case: we agree that Hamas aspires (or says it aspires) to the elimination of the State of Israel. It is your opinion (and the opinion of many other people) that this is an anti-semitic position. Yet we also know that there are many people who would dispute the latter conclusion. Is it not better simply to state "Hamas is opposed to the existence of the State of Israel", and allow people who feel that that constitutes anti-Semitism to draw that conclusion for themselves, while people who don't think so don't end up feeling that someone else's ideological position is being pushed at them? Palmiro | Talk 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that your self-serving distortions are equivalent to a white South Afrikaaner apartheidist complaining about the "terrorist" ANC and accusing Nelson Mandela of being a racist, you are factually wrong. Hamas does not demand that Palestine be free of Jews. Hamas demands that Palestine be an Islamic state where Jews live under Islamic law. I know that sounds horrible to a Zionist but look at it this way - it's exactly the same thing that Zionists demand - that Muslims live in Israel under a Jewish state with Israeli laws. If Hamas is anti-Semitic, then Israel also should be tagged with a category of anti-Arab anti-Semitism. --68.214.58.46 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that since most Muslim Arabs are semitic by definition, I think it would be best if wikipedia led the way to revise this language to read what it means "Anti-Jewish." Semites are not going to be anti-themselves. This language should be revised and all references to anti-semitism should be converted to the true meaning. But, since there's little chance this would happen, I think that this article would be served better as an anti-Israel or anti-Israeli classification, since its highly specific and the entity does not concern itself with non-Zionist Jewish afairs outside the Israel/Palestine area. Zionism is a movement inside Judaism, but is not all Judaism. Also, Hamas and most "radical" "extremist" Islamic groups in the Middle East are not against Israel solely based on one religion or one "race", but rather on the basis that it is a Western, non-Islamic installation, and that it sees the West (particularly the United States, since our greatest foreign aid contribution goes to Israel), as imposing its values on the Muslim world. This would be true if Israel was a Christian state. Hamas is not anti-semitic, it is anti-Israel. Colby Peterson 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I reject your inflammatory speech and misconstrued comparisons. One doesn't need to target all the Jews or exclude Druze to be qualified as an antisemite. Please read the definition of anti-Semitism. The Jews accepted the partition, the Arabs rejected it wanting to take over the whole region. How is rejecting self-determination and sovereignty for Jews is not anti-Jewish? See Religion in Israel: Israel doesn't require Muslims or Chrisitans to live under the Jewish law. Hamas requires Jews to live under Islamic law at best or calls for their genocide at worst. Yeop, exemplary humanitarians. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, these concepts of "an [eternal] people," "a homeland for a people" and the nation-state as being the modern realization of said eternal people's primeval desire for political union were all utilized by the NSDAP(as well as a lot of other fascists.) These are all "myths of the master race." As it stands, Israel gets the best of both worlds. When scrutinized from the outside it claims to be a modern, secular democracy ready to sit down at the table of nations as an equal. When the chips are down, though, Israel is the fulfilling of a milleniums old prophesy that this land was given to this people by God blah blah blah...oh, but it's not a theocracy. Hamas SHOULD be labeled as anti-semitic because the web of reifed concepts which the jews created is so full of inconsistencies and self-service that it's impossible to be a sane person without being antisemitic. So you say you don't think divine right is an acceptable justification for land ownership? ANTISEMITIC! They certainly aren't very fond of the jews so it's not far from the truth. Maybe if they are labeled antisemitic then the hamas haters will allow some more interesting content to be added. Lampajoo 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Lampajoo, it's antisemitic not because of the web of blah-blah-blah, but because they object to the Jewish state. If they were objecting to the German state they would be anti-German, if they were objectinng to the French state they would be anti-French, but since they object to the only Jewish state, they are anti-SemiticJeffsnill 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see that logic because Hamas is objectifying to any state that annexes Palestine. Anti-semitism, a misnomer to begin with, is "against Jews." Hamas is not necessarily against Jews, but against the state of Israel. Anti-Israel does not equal anti-semitism. Colby Peterson 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Colby Peterson, and Palestine just happens to include the entire present day Israel. It's actually quite simple, if they were objecting to any state that annexes present day Germany, they would be anti-German, if they were objecting to any state annexes present day France, they would be anti-French, but they just happend to object to any state that annexes the present day Israel, that makes them anti-Semitic. Also, please accept my apologies for the difficulties that you experience with the term “anti-Semite”. In modern English it means anti-Jewish. If you disagree, you should probably file a complaint with U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan. Jeffsnill 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffsnill, you should read the articles on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism very carefully. What do you think of Jews opposed to Israel? Do you think they also are anti-Semitic? --68.219.203.209 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

68.219.203.209, I'm well aware of the issues, and don't see any inconsistency. In US there are many people who hate their own country. And they can be called just that anti-american americans. Likewise, you can find a lot of Jew-hating Jews, like Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russia, or Noam Chomsky in the United States. A number of Nazi collaborators during WWII were Jewish, so yes, it is possible to be a Jewish anti-semite Jeffsnill 05:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it is possible to be a Jewish anti-semite but I asked you if you thought that every single person, including Jewish people, who oppose Israel are anti-semitic? You seem to think that it is impossible to criticize Israel without being anti-semitic. Most people recognize that there is legitimate criticism and those who try to label all critics as anti-semites are just using the accusation of anti-semitism as a tool to muzzle legitimate criticism.--68.219.203.209 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticizing Israel, or any other country, especially when done in a positive manner is a good thing for the country. Obviously nobody can be labeled anti-nation for criticizing the nation. If, on the other hand you are trying to dismiss the right to exist of the entire nation, then it can be said that you are the opponent of that nation. In case of Israel, if you are trying to dismiss the right to exist of the whole nation, it is proper to say that you are an anti-Semite. It’s like, if I were to criticize Joe for his shortcomings, and thus encourage him to become a better person, that would certainly be something friendly to him. If on the other hand I were to said that Joe has no right to exist, than I would be an anti-Joe. Jeffsnill 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Right., you'd be anti-Joe, not anti-Joe's religion or ethicity. Colby Peterson 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether someone is an anti-Semite for religious, ethnic or any other reason is of little consequence. They are still antiSemites. Jeffsnill 17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Off course it not antisemitism to critisize Israel. I am a critisizing Israel's action many times and I am not antisemite. In fact I am oppose to many of israeli goverment actions (such as routing of the wall and continuing the occupation).

• So what is antisemitism in Hamas or others ?

• Antisemitism is to be against the jewish people (not the religion)

• Today antisemitism is to be against the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland like any other national group

• The syrian have Syria, the French have Farnce but just the Jewish people should somehow live ina state controlled by Hamas ? or by a palestinian majority that would(already did) vote Hmasa and Saria law to power ?

• The jeiwsh people have a right to a national home and being against that right is antisemitism

Here is an example of antisemitism pretending to describe "most of the world" as "political critisim of Israel":

 ::"It must be acknowledged that Hamas does not agree with the Jewish State in the Middle East". Opposition to Israel is not anti-semitism. Israel is a political entity. Most of the world is opposed to the existence of Israel and they are not anti-semitic. --68.211.68.122 13:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq 19:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Their very charter cites the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" -- the most notoriously anti-Semitic tract in history -- as a guiding light. That suffices. --User:josephgrossberg 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Earth is Flat and Hamas should not be indexed in the Antisemitism Category

Just how fully integrated anti-Jewishness and anti-Judaism are in the Islamist struggle against Israel can be best learned from the ideology of the Islamic Resistance Movement -- the HAMAS. By its own definition, the HAMAS is a Palestinian Islamist movement fighting for the liberation of the entire Palestine, the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic State in its stead. However, starting with its most basic ideological literature, most notably the HAMAS' Covenant of August 1988, the organization stresses that its actual struggle is global and as much against the Jews as against Israel or its Zionist inhabitants.

THE HAMAS IDEOLOGY

In November 1988, Hamas published a covenant which was an attempt to systematically present the movement's ideology, in contrast to the PLO covenant. It presents the Arab-Israeli conflict as the epitome of an inherently irreconcilable struggle between Jews and Muslims, and Judaism and Islam. It is not a national or territorial conflict but a historical, religious, cultural and existential conflict between "truth and falsehood," the believers and the infidels, in which one side will eventually be the victor. The only way to confront this struggle is through Islam and by means of jihad (holy war), until victory or martyrdom. "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!? This ideology is represented in the movement's emblem, which shows the Qur'an and a sword. Reflecting this point of view, the Hamas leaflets were the most vociferous of all leaflets distributed by the Palestinian organizations during the Intifada and contained the most extreme anti-Semitic statements against Jews, Israelis and Zionists.

The terminology used against the Jews in the leaflets is a mixture of Western anti-Semitic and Islamic rhetoric. Some of the anti-Semitic expressions appearing repeatedly in the leaflets are:

"The brothers of the apes, the killers of the Prophets, blood suckers, warmongers," "barbaric," "cowards," "cancer expanding in the land of Isra' [reference to Palestine which was the destination of Muhammad's night journeyl and Mi'raj [Muhammad's ascent to heaven] threatening the entire Islamic world," "a conceited and arrogant people," "the enemy of God and mankind," "the descendants of treachery and deceit,", Nazis," "spreading corruption in the land of Islam," "the Zionist culprits who poisoned the water in the past, killed infants, women and elders," "thieves, monopolists, usurers."

Verses from the Qur'an and the hadith (the traditions associated with Muhammad passed down by his companions) were used often to reinforce the negative image of the Jews, and terminology with Islamic connotations was dominant. The leaflets usually began with the religious invocation: "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compa.ssionate." Almost every leaflet contained a Qur'anic verse either as a heading or as a conclusion, emphasizing a certain feature inherent to the Jews, is instigating war. For example: "Oh believers! take not the Jews or the Christians as friends." "So make war on them: By your hand will God chastise them, and will put them to shame, and will give you victory over them, and will heal the bosoms of a people who believe."

source: [[17]]

Hamas Movement Spreads Anti-Semitism via the Internet [[18]]

“In Hamas' literature, anti-Semitism became almost dominant. Earlier anti-Semitic motifs are developed time and again in their magazine Falastin al-Muslama. Almost every issue contains anti-Jewish articles using elements from the Islamic tradition. Judaism is presented as a religion based on lies, which from its origin called for aggression against others and their exploitation.”

Its founding charter contains strong anti-Semitic motifs including a quotation from the Koran as well as extreme derogatory remarks taken literally from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The charter of Hamas says this is an authentic document reflecting the danger of the Jewish people.

source: [[19]]

Hamas Terror and Anti-Semitism Harsh Anti-Semitic Expressions by Abd Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi, A Senior Hamas Leader in the Gaza Strip - Rantisi’s incitement usually includes anti-Semitic attacks against the Jewish people. The themes he uses are well known and drawn from both classic European anti-Semitism and Islamic anti-Semitic interpretations. Source:[[20]]

or just google it yourself [[21]] -Regards,Doright 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have provided good evidence that some Israeli organizations consider Hamas to be anti-Semitic. That doesn't make it a fact. The accusations of anti-Semitism should be included in the article with attribution to the source. The category is not appropriate because it implies that the accusation is a fact. --68.219.203.209 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You see, 68.219.203.209, Hamas blows up Jews indiscriminately. This would probably constitute a sufficient evidence of Hamas’ hatred of Jews, ergo anti-Semitism. Unless, of course, you consider this sort of behavior to be an expression of passionate love towards Jewish people. Jeffsnill 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Hamas

"This word is from the same root as a common Biblical Hebrew word for "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" (Oxford University Press Hebrew-English Dictionary), used for example in Gen. 6:11."

Interesting observation, but its inclusion may violate NPOV. Root derivation is not an index of identification: saying that "hamas" derives from a common root with a Biblical Hebrew word for "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" can be like saying that "nonviolence" derives from a common root with an English word that means "to inflict physical harm" - specifically, the English words "violence" and "nonviolence" share the common Latin root ";vehemens"! Common derivation is only significant if the commonality is significant; in this case, "hamas"'s common root with "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" is only significant if we decide that the name Hamas is synonymous with "violence, injustice, harsh wrong." If the common root from which both are derived also means "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" then the observation is appropriate - could anyone identify the common root? I'll leave the quote in for now, but someone ought to address my concern.

Good point: Hebrew roots can be terribly ambiguous. Additionally, a reference to a Biblical Hebrew root is not necessarily significant when working with modern Hebrew. I'll remove it for now (per WP:BOLD). Justin Eiler 15:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that even if we can all agree what the Hebrew means, it shouldn't be included in this article unless there is some evidence that it means something to Hamas or that its meaning influenced their choice of acronym. Otherwise, it's a mere coincidence which is not really worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.Palmiro | Talk 16:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the one who put in that sentence about the meaning in Hebrew, as well as the quote from the Arabic dictionary on the Arabic word. I agree that there is doubt about whether the founders of Hamas thought about the meaning in Hebrew. I suspect that they did have in mind the meaning in Arabic, even though it's only an acronym. But I don't think there are enough Hebrew scholars among them to know its meaning in Hebrew.

As for whether the Hebrew meaning is significant, I think it is. First of all, even though the word is not used in everyday Hebrew (they use alimut for violence and i-tsedek for injustice), its meaning is nevertheless well known, especially to anyone who reads the Hebrew Bible. The original meaning in Hebrew is clear from the many verses in the Bible that use it. As for the original meaning in Proto-Semitic, one has to guess. A Hebrew dictionary I have says that hamas is related to the Arabic hamisa meaning "to be strong". That is a rather too abbreviated definition of the Arabic meaning, but I think that is probably more or less the meaning in the common Proto-Semitic--something like "to be strong, vehement, aggressive".

I suggest rewriting my sentence something like: "Although the founders of the organization most likely were unaware of the fact, the related word "chamas" in Hebrew has very bad connotations to Jews and Israelis, as it is an old word for "violence, injustice, harsh wrong" (Oxford University Press Hebrew-English dictionary). The word is quite common in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Gen. 6:11."

EricK 07:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think it is useful and really is significant, I suppose it could go in, though the first part of the proposed sentence is a bit speculative. Certainly the Muslim Brothers had the meaning of the Arabic acronym in mind, just as those of Fata7 (conquest). Palmiro | Talk 12:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it certainly doesn't belong in the first line giving the meaning of the Arabic word. Palmiro | Talk 18:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the Hebrew word Hamas keeps getting put back in. Can we come to a final consensus? I think that if the information about the Hebrew word "Hamas" is to be included in the article, it must be made clear that the Arabic Hamas is an acronym and only coincidentally and phonetically similar to the Hebrew word. Otherwise it appears to be a POV editorial that Hamas deliberately invoked the word and its meaning in Hebrew, for which we have no confirmation source or even a reputable speculation source. --AladdinSE 01:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is significant. Not because the Hamas had it in mine when picking a name, but because it is relevant to the Israeli views(or more accuratly, feelings) towards the Hamas. If Hamas meant in Hebrew "Peace, Love, and Blooming Flowers" I'd be in favor of adding that too. Most Israelis don't know that Hamas stands for The Islamic Resistance Movement, but they as hell know that Hamas means "something very bad"(as it had been noted above, Hebrew roots are complicated, and most Israelis don't know the exact meaning of Biblical words). It even gave birth to the slang word "Hamasnik"("-of the Hamas" or "Hamas activist" etc.), which is used towards any oponent, foe, or just a disliked person, when the obvious conotation is to the Hebrew meaning of Hamas, and no to the Islamic Resistance Movement, although the term comes from it. Point is - it is relevant for Israeli views affected by the Hamas(and it's name). conio.h • talk 03:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevant to Israel, not to Hamas, in my opinion. HamAss has a strange connotation in English but it's not relevant to the organization either. --Krukowski 03:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamas operates (only) in Israel(and the Gaza Strip, and the occupied Judea and Samaria). If Al-Qaeda meant something in Hebrew, I wouldn't have want it added to the article. Besides, I'm talking about the effect the Hamas has on Israel. It belongs here as much is at belongs to Effects of Palestinian Terrorist Organizations on Israel, Israeli Culture and Israeli Views. conio.h • talk 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that without speculation about the Hebrew word "hamas" from an outside source, the relevancy is tenuous at best, if not downright original research. If it is put in, all I am saying is that there must be the "coincidental phonetic" caveat inserted. --AladdinSE 07:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Zeq

Hamas is well funded and known to make generous payments to the families of suicide bombers. According to The Guardian [22] the group is "paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews."

On December 12, 2005 Hamas sent a video greeting to the "Arabs of 1948" (i.e Israeli Arabs) on their help to Hamas "To destroy Israel from within" .[23] , and not to suffer from the perceived corruption of the Fatah party .

These are the two paragraphs I removed from the intro. Zeq, there are some real problems with them.

1. "Hamas is well funded and known to make generous payments to the families of suicide bombers." -- Needs a citation, and needs to be in a later section, not the introsuction for POV reasons.

Also needs to point out that they make payments to the families after their children have committed the suicide bombing because the Israeli government imposes severe financial penalties on the same families. I.e. far from funding terrorism this is a case of trying to help the poor that are robbed by the Israeli government for the crimes of people that are not them. I.e. a case of ensuring that although the Israeli government punish people for the crimes of others, in contradiction to the universal declaration of human rights, Hamas wish to ensure that people's rights under that same declaration, those rights the declaration says they have simply by virtue of existing, are upheld.

1. "According to The Guardian [24] the group is "paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews." -- I've covered this in an NPOV manner in a later paragraph.

In much the same way as Creationist groups pay for TV adverts to say that it isn't a bunch of evil terrorist nutcases. There isn't anything significant about this, other than people who clearly have a bad press in some regions of the world, many of which are heavily biased against them, trying to clear their own name.

1. On December 12, 2005 Hamas sent a video greeting to the "Arabs of 1948" (i.e Israeli Arabs) on their help to Hamas "To destroy Israel from within" .[25] -- This not only needs a citation (from a neutral source), this needs to be in History, not in the intro.

That would be 100% of the membership of Hamas that sent the video? or an individual, or group, within it. I.e. is it like the entire state of Israel bombing civilian targets, or just the nutcases that constitute KACH?

1. and not to suffer from the perceived corruption of the Fatah party. -- Straight POV.

Zeq, I support Israel and I'm not at all fond of Hamas. But if we live in a world where we deal with people like them, we must know ALL the truth--not just the truth that agrees with our preferences. Justin Eiler 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Opinion" is not "Citation"

Zeq, your last edit to this page cited an editorial/opinion piece. Opinions and editorials are not "facts"--they are opinions, and cannot be cited as facts. Justin Eiler 17:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I confused two edits. sorry. It is fixed now. Zeq 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of POV and the "totallydispute" tag

If you wish to dispute the claims of the article and add a tag such as {{totallydispute}}, please thereafter come to the talk page and explain why you dispute the article. We cannot improve the article without some concrete, specific idea of what the problem is. Justin Eiler 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your categorization of hamas as anti-semitic has been disputed, remember?--68.214.58.46 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your disputes have been responded to, remember? Justin Eiler 23:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you summarily concluded that you were correct but the dispute continues. Hence the need for the disputed tag, which you removed. --68.214.58.46 23:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, friend: what I did was respond to your objections, explaining why they were inaccurate. You have yet to explain why my conclusions are incorrect, or why my response does not satisfy the facts. I'm not worried about satisfying you or myself: my interest is solely and simply in the truth--and if that means that Hamas is truthfully not anti-semitic, then I will endeavor to assis you in removing those sections. But whether or not they are antisemitic should be conclusively established before we start changing the page again.

Please understand: it's not that this is an argument that I'm trying to win. What's going on here is that I want this to be an accurate and truthful article. That means I'm not nearly as interested in being "right" now as I am in gaining more knowledge, or correcting ignorance or misinformation that I may have. Justin Eiler 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who want to categorize Hamas as anti-Semitic. You returned that category to the article and you removed the disputed tag. When you asked that any disputes be brought to the Talk page, I reminded you that one of the disputes is over the tag you insist on including in the article. You claimed that you had responded to the dispute as if that settled it. The dispute continues, the tag belongs and the category does not. Your arguments are specious and disingenuous. --68.214.58.46 23:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you do not feel my arguments are in good faith? Justin Eiler 23:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose somebody could type up a sub-section about "Hamas and antisemitism" - it shouldn't be that hard. TheronJ 22:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Archived Discussions

I archived the first twenty subtopics of the talk page to Talk:Hamas/Archive_1 and Talk:Hamas/Archive_2. Justin Eiler 23:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hamas Charter, again

Would anyone like to offer a reason why I should not take out all the quotes from the Hamas Charter, which is readily available in full from the external links, instead giving a succinct description of relevant provisions thereof in appropriate parts of the article? Palmiro | Talk 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Because poeople rearly click on external links and it is better to give them a glance of important quotes. Maybe look at the reason whu you filled the "nakba" articles in zionist quotes although those quotes (and links to them) belong in articles such as "transfer". The quotes stay, they belong in this article. Zeq 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you post the whole charter so that readers can know the essence of the movement and make their own judgement as to whether the article accurately portrays the movement's ideology. (70.29.200.204)

This is exactly what I think is looking increasingly like the only alternative, and indeed a result we are now poised to incrementally achieve, but it uses a disproportionate amount of space, duplicates Wikisource, and is contrary to policy. Palmiro | Talk 16:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Too long. It is enough to give the important quotes (as done now) and provide a link to the whole charter. Zeq 17:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence so far that the "important quotes" are being chosen on any basis except that people think they can use them to prove one point or another in pursuit of their ideological ends. This means other people put other bits in. And eventually we will have the whole thing here. Not good. Palmiro | Talk 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Luckly, so far, this did not occur and we have a reasnable number of quotes that take up 3-4% of this article. If someone will start adding many more quotes to cloud the issue this would be against WP:Point so I am not worried - we will be able to deal with it. If there is a quote you think is important - feel free to add it but make sure you don't violate WP:point just to show your point that what you think might occur is indeed occuring (so far it did not. Zeq 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To POV editors

see this: Talk:Hamas#Israel_conscription_rates before adding this BS nonsense again. Zeq 16:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think or what the true conscription rate among Israeli Jews is. What matters in this article is Hamas' perception, reasoning and justification. --68.219.203.209 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You have violated Wikipedia policy by changing my comment. If you want to provide sources for what your beliefs are do it but don't violate Wikipedia policy again otherwise I will complain and you might get block. Please learn wikipdia rulls before continuing to place propeganda on this article. Zeq 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of you have violated Wikipedia custom, Zeq, but your personal attack is the only actual policy that was broken. Your comment was not changed--only the heading.

To both of you: if you do not cease the endless POV edit-warring (and yes, BOTH of you are guilty), I will ask for administrator intervention. Justin Eiler 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Look again I never violated the policy (although I had the intention of violating it by telling a person that justified murder what i think of him) but at the end I decided that violating it by writing a perosonal attack against someone who justify murder would be a waste of time, so I ended up not violating the policy - such blatenet bias against jews is not even worth violating policy over it. Zeq 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--and thank you for editing your statement so that it was clearly not a PA.

However, the point does remain: both of you (and several other contributors) are engaging in some very POV edits. Would it not be better to step back and let others, who are not so emotionally attached to this particular subject, try to write a more objective article? Justin Eiler 17:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about personal attacks yet you find it perfectly acceptable to continually refer to people as "Jewish Zionists" in a derogatory nature. Orbframe 17:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't complain.--68.219.203.209 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But you did edited other people words and he was not refering to you in the above comment anyhow. Zeq 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What other people's words did I edit Zeq? Your attempted personal attack section heading "To the anonymous editor and hamas supporter from Atalnta"? --68.219.203.209 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack, if you think it is an atack on you I appologize. Zeq 18:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's try to leave our personal opinions out of this and edit an encyclopedic article, not a polemic for or against Hamas. In fact, I will no longer edit this article because it is not possible to remove all the POV being inserted by partisans.--68.219.203.209 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. We will leave personal attacks aside. Zeq 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Just one question: Are you visting in Atlanta (From Canberra by any chance?)

Gone. No one heard from 68.219.203.209 ever since I asked if he is visiting From Canberra mmm...... makes you wonder. Zeq 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hamas Run Sschools And Hospitals! Why No Mention Of That?

stop being biased and mention that! source from BBC News

Hamas runs social programmes like building schools, hospitals and religious institutions http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1654510.stm

This is true and I actually added that, not sure why it was deleted. Zeq 20:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the section title CAPITALIZED? And so many question marks... Really, one is enough. El_C 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nazis made trains come on schedule, didn't make them any less homisidal Jeffsnill 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That we will ensure the trains run on time is attributed to the Italian Fascists (Mussolini), actually. El_C 00:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A NPOV article should include all information. This is an encyplodedia article, not an article to convince people that hamas is bad. The information should be included. --MateoP 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal Action Against Hamas?

What is the point of this section? Why should it not be deleted?

The first paragraph refers to a civil action in the USA against an event taking place in Israel. Legal actions against events outside a court's jurisdiction have no relevance.

The second paragraph refers to an indictment which, by definition, is POV.

--die Baumfabrik 05:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Flurry of enthusiasm here

Yesterday I have fixed the spelling of Alistair Cooke's name (was misspelled as Crooke). His opinion does not correspond to mine, but that's another story. Today, his name is misspelled again, and some relevant links (such as ADL) were gone. The removal of a linked, sourced, relevant material is not a way to collaborate. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's Alistair Crooke.[26]

[27] There is an Alistair Cooke (probably rather better known, in England anyway) but it's not the same person at all. Probably worth citing a source in the article just so that the confusion doesn't recur. Palmiro | Talk 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed it because his name is "crooke" Zeq 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, good to know. I stand corrected. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Event. Why?

I suggest that any new news be moved to a topc named "Hamas Palistinian Election of 2006" and information should be moved from that to the main Hamas article as appropiate.

As a note of consistancy the Republican_Party_(United_States) article can change rapidly, just as the George W Bush. But they currently don't have that block inserted becuase there are articles such as U.S._presidential_election,_2004 to do this. Article does but they are not listed as current events because they both aren't events, they are entities. What are peoples' opinions on this? --..micky 09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti israel or Antisemite  ?

Being anti-Semite means being against the jews. (although other national origin, especially the arabs, are also semites) Still, antisemitism is widely used to describe hate against jews.

Being "for the destruction of Israel" or Being "pro-peace" may not seem antisemitic - right ?

so let's examine:

• Being for peace is nice, but if this peace means that it is achived by removing all the jews from israel - this does look so noable any more - right  ?

Being "anti_Israel" sound as being "anti-American" or "Anti-French" but let's examine closly:

• "Anti-Israel" is against the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland. After all israel is the only homelnd the Jewish people have.

So do not let retoric confuse you. But in case it does read article 6 in the Hamas covenenet: Their hatred toward the jews is spelled out clearly in article6.

Zeq 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed questionable passage

I rm this:

"According to the semi-official Hamas biography "Truth and existence," Hamas evolved through four main stages:

1. 1967-1976: Construction of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip in the face of "oppressive Israeli rule";
2. 1976-1981: Geographical expansion through participation in professional associations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and institution building, notably al-Mujamma` al-islami, al-Jam`iyya al-islamiyya, and the Islamic University in Gaza;
3. 1981-1987: Political influence through establishment of the mechanisms of action and preparation for armed struggle;
4. 1987: Founding of Hamas as the combatant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and the launching of a continuing Jihad."

This last sentence in particular "Founding of Hamas as the combatant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood" is incorrect. How can you claim Hamas is the "combatant arm of the Muslim Brotherhood"? It is inspired by it, that's not the same at all. Tazmaniacs

Actually, the wikisource translation of the Covenant says "The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine". I think that material should go back in; it seems to correspond surprisingly closely to fact. Palmiro | Talk 16:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rear moment in wiki history: I agree with Palmiro. back in it should go. Zeq 17:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the intro to state this rather significant information about the organisation. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources: how about endnotes?

Due to the controversial nature of the topic, shouldn't we use only endnotes as in other similar articles, with Citenews templates? It's longer, but at least we immediately know which source comes the info from. Tazmaniacs 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Steps by steps, paragraphs by paragraphs, intro, sections, conclusion...

Can we agree on this as beginning of the article:

"Hamas (حماس), acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, literally "Islamic Resistance Movement" and Arabic for 'zeal'), is the largest Palestinian Islamist movement. As a radical political group involved in military activities, it is classed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel. However, it also carries out social service and community building, which is an important factor of its recent victory during the January 2006 legislative election."

It says the most important (Islamic, terrorist, social activities & recent election). We don't need any pathos here, and any supporter of peace-salam-shalom will agree that pathos will not solve anything. If you want to talk about cutting babies in two and other such things, can you at least do it two paragraphs down? Everybody knows Hamas is an islamic terrorist group, that's why we write it in the first paragraph, no need to add pathos (why not a webcam about some guy blowing himself up?). Tazmaniacs

Good idea if we could agree on the introduction. Agree on the four most important points. However, I suggest this one:

Hamas (حماس), acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, literally "Islamic Resistance Movement" and Arabic for 'zeal'), is the largest Palestinian Islamist movement. The group carries out extensive social service and community building. However, as a radical political group involved in military activities, it is classed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel.

We could add that it won the 2006 elections, but I dont think we should try to analyze the reasons for winning in the introduction. As social service is a main activity, that Hamas uses much more ressources on than terrorist activities, I believe the two things should be mentioned in that order. Bertilvidet 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The current version is:

"Hamas (حماس), acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, literally "Islamic Resistance Movement" and Arabic for 'zeal'), is the largest Palestinian Islamist terrorist movement. It carries out attacks on Israeli civilians, including suicide attacks in Israel as well as attacks on Israeli forces in the the occupied territories. Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and [[Israel. The group grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood and follow the Muslim Brotherhood tradition of providing extensive social service."

I'm sure we can list social & terrorist activities together. However, writing that the group "follow the Muslim Brotherhood tradition of providing extensive social service" is ignoring the specificity of Hamas, which may have carried on this tradition (which is normal, for a religious movement), but massified it so much. What about:

"Hamas (حماس), acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, literally "Islamic Resistance Movement" and Arabic for 'zeal'), is the largest Palestinian Islamist movement. A social, political and military group, Hamas both engages in welfare activities and in terrorist actions. It is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel."? Tazmaniacs

How about:

"Hamas (حماس), acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, literally "Islamic Resistance Movement" and Arabic for 'zeal'), is the largest Palestinian Islamist terrorist movement. It carries out attacks on Israeli civilians, including suicide attacks in Israel as well as attacks on Israeli forces in the the occupied territories. Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel. The group grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, follow and extended their tradition of providing extensive social service."

Zeq 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, do I need to say more than NPOV ? Yes, Hamas commit attacks that I would agree to labe terrorists. But their main focus is not on terrorism, but rather on social services. Both should be mentionned in the introduction. We can refer to the states that label Hamas as a terrorist organization but being NPOV we cannot make that judgement. Bertilvidet 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for Tazmaniac's last version. "Welfare activities and terrorist actions" is simple and to the point, which is good for the intro. The stuff about what kind of welfare activities and terrorist actions can all go below the TOC. (Taz's version is also a lot better than "military activities," which obscures more than it states). TheronJ 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"Hamas (حماس), acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, literally "Islamic Resistance Movement" and Arabic for 'zeal'), is the largest Palestinian Islamist movement. Hamas is engaged in welfare activities as well as in terrorist activities to achive it's political goals. It is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel."?

Zeq, could you please stop adding your own unbalanced introduction. I dont like Hamas neither, but the point of this site is give balanced factual information. And it is a fact that Hamas' main activity not is terrorism, even though they are mostly known for their horrible attacks. (by Bertilvidet, forgot to sign, sorry)

Could You stop interducing your POV about Hamas "main activity" in the intro of this article. The entry was more or less NPOV before you started a revert war. Zeq 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's use Tazmaniacs suggested compromise for the introduction until we reach a better agreement. It serves no purpose deleting their social activities - if the aim is to draw a negative image of the organisation this is not the right site. Obviously, attacks against civilians, which is terrorism, is a part of their strategy. Both facts should be mentioned. Let's work together for approaching the truth, despite disagreements. Bertilvidet 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No one has deleted "their social activity" it is there. Now don't start to argue that anyone here justwant to create "a negative image for Hmas" because this is not true. If anyone want to know my opinion about Hamas (which is not in the article) send me an e-mail but in the article we keep info whcih most people would look for in an encyclopedia. Zeq 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction that we all agree upon?

It seems to be a hard work to keep this article - about a sensitive issue - sufficiently NPOV. I have however the impression that all of us participating in the discussion have reached an agreement / compromise about the points to be in the introduction:

1. The largest Palestian Islamist movement
2. Provides extensive social services
3. Has carried out attacks on Israelis (including civilians) why it designated as a terrorist organization by several states.

And then, obviously, we should not have too many details in these first lines, which must sum up the main aspects of the group.

Until we reach another agreement I strongly urge everyone to keep an eye on these first lines and do an effort to keep it NPOV in line with the above mentioned points. Bertilvidet 07:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Really

I think we're going about this the wrong way. What we're here to achieve is a concise, factual definition. If we all sit about here trying to find compromise wording, all we'll end up doing is compromising the facts -- the very thing we don't want. So why don't we lay out the facts first (in point form) and do the wordsmithing afterwards. Softwalker 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are many facts about any entry. And the article is filled with facts, if there is anythning factually wrong it will be contested immediately. My point is that we whould find a compromise, which I believe we have, about which facts are the most significant and best describing the group and thus tobe mentioned in the introduction. I believe an introdcution will be clearly biased if any of my three poınts are left out! Bertilvidet 14:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please particapte here...It really serves nothing just reverting the introduction to whatever you find the most relevant...I believe we can reach a consensus, and I think the three above mentioned points is a good point of start.Bertilvidet 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Targeting civilians is not "military activity"

Targeting civilians, the way Hamas has been doing since 1990 (and especially in 1994-1996 and 2001-2004) is not a "militray activity" - it is a war crime (also known as terrorism).

To claim that the world clasify Hamas as terrorist because it is political extrem and engane in militray activity is not a euphamism it is a lie. No place for such lies on Wikipedia.

Zeq 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli "military" attacks in the past 5 years? About 4000? Roughly 5 times as many Palestinians as Israeli civilians killed by such attacks, I believe. Sure, the Israelis aren't targeting the Palestinian civilians. They just have very bad aim, it seems. Unless you are willing to label the Israeli military as a terrorist organization, I think you should rein in your righteous indignation. It's like the teapot calling the kettle black. --68.219.203.209 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

BS. BS. BS. Your numbers are wrong and the issue is what does each side TARGETS. Zeq 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The 4000 Palestenians are victims of Hamas, because they are using them as human shields, and not of Israel. Jeffsnill 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The "human shields" argument does not justify the actions of the IDF. According to the Geneva Convention it is a war crime for an occupying power to kill civilians under its jurisdiction. Intent is irrelevant. Whether or not the IDF deliberately targets civilians is beside the point. It undertakes military operations knowing that there will necessarily be "collateral damage." It is therefore responsible for its actions. Hamas is, of course, responsible for war crimes, but the actions of Hamas do not give the IDF sanction to kill innocent Palestinians. This logic is extremely dangerous. Gregor Samsa 08:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Human shields argument actually justifies actions of IDF. Otherwise you would be writing a cart blanche to any criminal with a single hostage. Geneva convention doesn’t define a war crime for an occupying power to kill civilians under its jurisdiction, because such definition would allow a civilian to engage in any illegal activity, including murder of fellow civilians without fear of being punished. Therefore intent of IDF is right on the point. Possibility of the collateral damage does not prohibit the military operation, especially done for the purpose of self-defense. IDF doesn’t kill innocent Palestenians, Hamas does, by putting them in a line of fire. If Hamas uses live people to stop bullets coming from IDF at Hamas, then Hamas is the murderer. Greg, it’s not that my logic is dangerous, it’s just that you are lacking one. Jeffsnill 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The basis for my argument is very simple: an individual or state is responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. This proposition is, in fact, the basis for all criminal law. If the IDF kills innocent civilians while engaging in military actions it is responsible for those deaths. It can't blame them on the paramilitaries/terrorists, or what have you, that it is fighting. As the occupying power it is responsible for the safety of the civilians under its control, and if it deliberately puts them in danger, that's a war crime. The Geneva Convention is quite explicit about this. If we follow your logic to its conclusion we end up justifying, not only the war crimes of the IDF, but also those of Hamas, for once you start rationalizing the killing of civilians you give your enemies the moral ground to do the same. That's why your logic is so dangerous. Gregor Samsa 17:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Palestenians that you claim to be the IDF victims, are in fact the victims of Hamas, because Hamas is using them as human shields. It is true, that an individual or state are responsible for their actions. This is precisely why IDF, who’s primary responsibility is to protect Israeli citizens, is obligated under a Geneva convention to kill Hamas terrorists. In order to prevent them from murdering Israeli citizens. You are correct by noting that a crime is committed by putting civilians DELIBERATELY in danger. IDF would never put civilians in danger deliberately. Also there is no equivalence between IDF and Hamas, since IDF never used civilians as human shields. Jeffsnill 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

oh, that's why ;-) Arre 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm wrong on the last sentense, I admit that Jeffsnill 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Even more to the point: IDF has a responsibility to protect Palestinian citizens. Hamas terrorists are dangerous to Palestinian citizens because of how they operate and who they target. IDF is protecting Palestinians by killing those Hamas agents that engage in terror. The IDF works to minimize the collateral damage while Hamas chooses to maximize it. Tbeatty 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And when the IDF kills Palestinian civilians that have nothing to do with Hamas? I find it sickening that there are so many people not just willing but determined to make excuses for the murder of innocent civilians. Palmiro | Talk 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is making excuses for Israeli's killing civilians. Hamas terrorists have turned the Palestinian areas into war zones. Unfortunately, civilians are killed in war zones. Israel and most nations do their best to limit civilian casualties as much as possible but they are a fact of war. If Hamas wanted to eliminate civilian casualties in Palestinian areas, they would simply stop attacking Israel from Palestinian areas and stop making their terrorist weapons in Palestinian neighborhoods. Unlike Hamas, Israel does it's best to limit collateral damage including civilian casualties. Tbeatty 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The IDF regularly and deliberately puts civilians in danger. The vast majority of civilian deaths in this conflict are the result of IDF operations. However the IDF might rationalize these actions, it undertakes them knowing that civilian deaths will be the inevitable result. That means the IDF is responsible for those deaths--we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions, that's sort of an elementary moral principle. When you fire missiles at apartment buildings, or fire tank shells in densely-populated refugee camps you're going to kill civilians. That is a predictable outcome; you are responsible for the deaths that occur as a result. So you have to decide, is it worth it? Is it worth it to commit war crimes in order to maintain control of the region? Now, you may say yes, but in addition to losing all moral credibility, you'll have to find a justification for your war crimes that doesn't provide a justification for the war crimes of others. You might say, "this is the only way to fight terror, these people cannot govern themselves, you have to break a few eggs, its for their own good, we're protecting them by killing them," and so on, but these arguments cut both ways, and given that the majority of Palestinian civilian deaths, in fact, the majority of all civilian deaths in this conflict, are the result of IDF actions, it stands to reason that, for the IDF, the most simple and effective means to protect civilians would simply be to refrain from killing them. That would dramatically reduce the violence in the region. But of course, the IDF has no interest in protecting civilians, it is interested in maintaining control; that is its mandate, and so long as the occupation is the most effective means of control the IDF will continue to kill civilians in order to maintain it. Gregor Samsa 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Idiot. 71.224.92.104 10:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Gregor Samsa 07:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack. It was an observation. By your "logic," every nation in the history of the world is terrorist and deserves to have its civilians ruthlessly slaughtered. Civilians die in war. It is unfortunate. If you want it to stop, I suggest you figure out how to end war. Otherwise, find a better way to justify the murder of Israeli innocents.71.224.92.104 10:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to justify the vicious atrocities of Hamas; I'm merely pointing out that the atrocities committed by Hamas do not give the IDF sanction to kill innocent Palestinians. This is sort of obvious, I know, but some people here seem to think that the IDF is not responsible for the civilians it has killed. My argument is very simple: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions. That means if you undertake military operations knowing that they will result in civilian deaths--that is, if you fire missiles at crowded apartment blocks or fire tank shells in densely populated refugee camps--you are responsible for the deaths that occur as a result. When you dismiss these deaths by calling them an "unfortunate" side effect of war, you relieve the IDF of its responsibility to protect civilians and effectively end up sanctioning war crimes. Gregor Samsa 19:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

IDF is not putting civilians in danger. The primary reason they are firing at the terrorists among the Palestinians is to protect Israeli civilians. Inaction on part of IDF would be suicidal as it would allow Hamas terrorist to murder Israeli civilians without any restrain. If Palestinians want to violence to stop, they need to stop terrorizing Israelis, as the “Predictable outcome” of murdering Israeli civilians, is death of Palestinian civilians, which according to Greg’s logic makes Palestenian terrorists war criminals. If Israelis were to follow Gregor’s advice, the violence in the region would not reduce, but it would increase, because Hamas would see that there is nothing stopping them from murdering Israelis. IDF is not interested in control of anyone, it is only interested in protecting of Israeli civilians from being murdered by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists. Self-defense is not a war crime, therefore IDF is not a war criminal. The fact that Palestinian casualties are predictable or not has no bearing on the issue, as IDF’s primary responsibility is to the Israeli citizens. The arguments don’t cut both ways because IDF doesn’t deliberately kill Palestinian civilians, unlike Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists. If IDF wanted to kill Palestinians that could do by hitting every population center, and killing either Palestinian or almost every Palestinian in a matter of days. Since they are not doing so, we can conclude that they don’t desire Palestinian civilian casualties. Jeffsnill 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Occupation is not self-defense; it is the opposite of self-defense. If the Israeli government were at all interested in the well being of their own people they would end the occupation. You can't occupy a nation and deprive a people of their basic human rights in self-defense. You can't destroy their economy, their social institutions, kill their civilians and subject their families to an endless series of humiliations and claim to be acting in self-defense. Nor can you stand with your boot on your neighbour's neck and expect to have peace. You want a peaceful resolution to the conflict? End the occupation. If you end the occupation, you undermine the popular support that allows paramilitaries to operate. You want an end to violence? Give people an alternative to violence; allow them self-determination, participation in government, economic opportunities, and they will abandon violence. But in order to do that you need to recognize some very elementary moral principles, like you are responsible for your actions, which means, you are responsible for the civilians you kill in military operations, you are responsible for the poverty and misery caused by your social and economic policies, etc. This recognition is the basic precondition for any resolution to the conflict. Gregor Samsa 06:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the occupation was done because Israelis were shot at. If you don't like being occupied don't terrorise your neighbours, and they won't Jeffsnill 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You have confused the effect of the occupation with its cause. Gregor Samsa 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't. You did. Jeffsnill 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this discussion seems to have veered astray. Getting back on topic, the deliberate targetting of civilians is not "military activity" according to any international bodies or codes. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But one might also point out that "military activity" can also involve war crimes that are morally equivalent to terrorism. Gregor Samsa 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

its not a war crime to defend self Jeffsnill 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, occupation is not self-defense, and it is a war crime for an occupying power to engage in military activities that recklessly endanger the lives of civilians. Gregor Samsa 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Occupation can be done for the purpose of self-defense. Israel does not recklessly endangers lives of civilians. And endengering is nowere defined as a war crime. Jeffsnill 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I disapprove of calling liberation movements terrorist, and not applying this label to recognised military organisations. The word terrorist is emotionally loaded. Jeffsnill, what is your opinion of the carpet bombing of Europe during World War II? Was that terrorism? How about the US nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The shelling of Israeli cities by Hezbollah and the detonation of bombs in Israeli cities by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is equivalent to IDF missile strikes of Palestinian cities. Killing civilians is not okay if carried out by the recognised military organisations.

First, please sign your comments. IDF doesn't strike palestinian cities - it does strike militants and terrorists. Yes, there might be some wounded or even killed civil Palestinians - but they are not targets. Don't you see the difference? --tasc 15:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought my IP number would be logged. That was my first ever post on this site. How do I get a user id? Regarding targets, when an IDF assassination operative fires a missile into a Palestian urban area to take out a Palestinian resistance fighter, he can reasonably expect his actions to kill civilians. In the same way when a suicide bomber explodes a bomb in as Israeli street, he can reasonably expect his actions to kill civilians. I indeed don't see the difference. If I walk into a crowded street, pull out a rocket propelled grenade and fire it at someone, I'm responsible for the deaths of the people in that person's vicinity. When any military bombs cities, there are always civilian deaths. These military operations are carried out nevertheless because they result in an advantage of some sort. The case of missile strikes against resistance fighters, the advantage is elimination of an enemy fighter. In the case of Dresden and Hiroshima, the advantage is terror in the German and Japanese population. In both cases though, the civilian population is terrorized. The Palestinian population is the more terrorized in greater Palestine than are the Israelis. The ratio of Palestinian deaths to Israeli deaths is 7:1. For every Israeli that dies in the conflict, 7 Palestinians die. --Isaac, 16:49 UTC

Destruction versus Abolition

I propose that we reevaluate the use of the word "destruction" in reference to the stated Hamas charter aim regarding the State of Israel. My concern is that the unqualified use of the word Destruction in such a violent context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict invokes images of mass genocide and murder, as well as of physical demolition. We are all agreed, are we not, that Hamas actually wants to abolish the Jewish State and dismantle it's Jewish institutions and replace them with Islamic ones. No murder, or even deportation, is contemplated. Of course we must also make sure that it is understood that Hamas aims to achieve this by armed struggle, not a "constitutional process" which of course is unavailable. For example, in 1997, voters in the city of Miami, Florida considered a ballot measure to abolish the city and merge it with the county [28] [29] [30]. Had it passed, the jurisdiction and legal entity of the city of Miami would have been technically destroyed, but the more appropriate word is abolished. What does everyone think? I think we should look into replacing references to "destruction of Israel" with "abolition", or at the very least, make clear what the concept of "destruction" vis a vie the Hamas charter actually entails. --AladdinSE 02:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's a political, philosophical or ideological abolition, not a physical destruction they're talking about. I think. --Krukowski 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Murder and Genocide if Israelis is not something that Hamas contemplates, it is something that they actually implement, and this is even before the state of Israel is destroyed. Their attacks on Jewish settlers indicate that there is no room for Jews in the Islamic theocratic nation that they envision. Destruction, therefore, is right on. Jeffsnill 04:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure. I don't have a problem with "abolition" vs. "destruction". Iwould like someone more scholarly in Arabic to ascertain what the charter is. But I do not agree that that Hamas believe there is a place in Palestine for any Jews. To use Saudia Arabia as an example, Jerusalem is a Holy City for Muslims and just as Jews are banned from Saudia Arabia, I think Hamas' goal is to remove all Jews from what they consider Palestinian lands. I don't think Hamas cares whether the jews are "abolished" as a state or "destroyed" as a state. It is clear, however, that violence is tool in their arsenal to bring about their desired end. Tbeatty 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a Euphamism we should be bold and call things as they are . Zeq 05:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeffsnill, that is an emotional perspective to take. I well understand that organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc, who have committed terrorist acts targeting civilians, are naturally hateful to a great many people, especially Israelis. But if we are to write an accurate and neutral encyclopedia article about them, we must accurately portray their charter and stated aims. I remember that in an article or Talk discussion somewhere, there was an explanation about Hamas's policy of an Islamic State where non-Muslims receive Dhimmi status under Islamic Law etc. I will ask SlimVirgin and Jayjg about it, as I recall they were participants in the discussion. The Jewish population will not be deported, much less exterminated, under a Hamas-envisioned system. And just because we substitute "abolition" in place of "destruction", in order to distinguish the aim of an end to legal jurisdiction as opposed to mass death and physical destruction, we are in no way obfuscating the violent acts committed by Hamas, which will still be discussed in the article. I am advocating no whitewash here. Tbeatty has a point about ascertaining in a clearer fashion what the charter actually states, but in the meantime it is not unreasonable to simply tell the truth, that Hamas' aim is to abolish the State of Israel and the secular Palestinian Authority and replace it with an Islamic Republic. Jews and Christians have limited rights in such a State, and Hamas does not advocate murder or expulsion in the event they achieve their Republic. Tbeatty, if you think this is a lie or a ruse, I'm sure others do too, and we can include those postulations from various sources as well. What I advocate is that we accurately portray Hamas's avowed policy regarding Jews in an Islamic Republic of Palestine, and that an unqualified "destruction of the State of Israel" is not an accurate way of doing that. Also, please note that quotations from sources will of course NOT have words substituted. --AladdinSE 06:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I made one edit along these lines:

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and any secular Palestinian government, inasmuch as these geopolitical entities are abolished, and the absorption of the Jewish and Arab populations into an Islamic Republic of Palestine.

I invite others to tweak it and continue the discussion. It is not perfect yet, but is it not more accurate and neutral than simply saying "destruction of Israel"?--AladdinSE 07:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Hamas charter also specifically describes the killing of Jews; it's rather hard to imagine any scenario at all under which the "destruction of the State of Israel" would not also involve the killing of tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews, and the expulsion or flight of millions more. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, You are assuming that Hamas charter is a legal document that accurately portrays the nature of the organization, as well as its purpose. When, in fact, this is a worthless piece of paper, and their true nature is described by their acts of terror as well as the occasional anti-Semitic pronouncements by its various members. Jeffsnill 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeffsnill, again, you are tackling this matter in a very emotional manner. If we can just put on our strict Wiki-neutrality hats on fore a bit, we can perhaps see eye to eye on some points. I am no fan of Hamas, as far as I am concerned they abandoned the concept of legitimate resistance when they began blowing up kids at buss stops. Yes, they have a large and successful welfare network, but this is dwarfed by the fact that they are actively damaging, confounding and delaying the achievement of justice and equality for the Palestinians. JayJG: Are there any sources which reproduce the Hamas charter verbatim (translated of course)? "Describes the killing of Jews" is a bit short on details. Yes of course the achievement of a Hamas-style "Islamic Republic" by armed struggle entails loss of life and refugees, but so does any war. All I am saying is, that we accurately describe what they say they want to do and achieve. Are we not agreed that they say they want to abolish Israel and the PA as legal entities and absorb the whole population of both into an Islamic Republic? We must of course present all doubts and reservations expressed about their stated aims and their perceived aims. --AladdinSE 06:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

BlueTruth: In your revert edit summary, you said "Hamas clearly calls for expulsion--- read charter again". As you can read above, we are debating this very point in this Talk section. You say to read the charter, but the article itself makes reference to it when it discusses the status of non-Muslims under an "Islamic State":

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. [Article 31]

Can you quote from the Charter, with a source, where it calls for expulsion of the Jewish population? Also, please use accurate edit summaries. You reverted another edit which you failed to mention or give reason for. I provided a source for the use of the word "assassination" for Yahya Ayyash. What is your rationale for reverting it? Thank you. --AladdinSE 07:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aladdin, article 31 of the charter "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions ... to coexist in peace ..." isn't enough to establish that Hamas intends to absorb, rather than kill or expel, the Jewish population. Article 7 says (my emphasis): " ...the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'" [31] I think we should say instead that it's not clear what Hamas would do with the current population of Israel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim, let's not be vage. So far Hamas actions speaks very clearly: Hamas object the right of the jews to have a country on what Hamas call "Islmic Wakf" (could be translted as "islamic territory". So the issue if they would kill all the jews or let some jews stay as Dhimis is really not a big difference.Most likley they would kill most and let few stay so that some Eurpeans (or Canadians) could say: "Hamas is not racist, look how they let the jews live in their midst as long as the jews behave according to Islam when they are in public." Zeq 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AlladinSE, the point that I’m trying to make is following. You have two entities: X (Hamas) and Y (charter of Hamas, alleged charter of Hamas, some piece of paper that some Hamas member wrote that claims to be a charter of Hamas, and so forth.) You are asserting that because we know something about Y (only says abolish) we can derive something about X (only wants to abolish). That’s fine, so long as you can prove that Y (piece of paper) has anything to do with X (true nature of Hamas, it’s goals, intentions about Israel and so forth.) Some people are not ready to take that for granted. Jeffsnill 08:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, the "issue if they would kill all the jews or let some jews stay as Dhimis" is a HUGE difference. Also, what we think will "most likely happen" is POV and original research. Jeffsnill, like I said before, I am only advocating that we accurately state what Hamas says, not that we disallow all world speculation that they might contemplate, or practice something else. Therefore, the unqualified and repeated use of "destruction" where abolition is more accurate, is not NPOV as far as what Hamas claims. Slim, you're right about that part of Article 31. I only mentioned it because it was quoted in the Wikipedia article, whereas no other section was quoted that articulated expulsion or genocide in the event of the establishment of an Islamic republic. The reference to "fighting and killing Jews" could easily refer to the war to achieve the Islamic republic, not the post-republic system. As far as the charter is concerned, the policy is not spelled out in black and white. This is why we need to use journalistic sources and interviews with Hamas to fill in the blanks and speculation where the charter is ambivalent. For example, this BBC article says:

On the other hand, the group has shown itself willing to periodically suspend attacks in favour of Palestinian diplomacy, if the group sees fit.

"The main aim of the intifada [uprising] is the liberation of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, and nothing more. We haven't the force to liberate all our land," Mr Rantissi told the BBC in 2002.

"It is forbidden in our religion to give up a part of our land, so we can't recognise Israel at all. But we can accept a truce with them, and we can live side by side and refer all the issues to the coming generations." (emphasis added).

I will search for such interviews and sources that give a clearer definition of post-republic hamas policy. I will also amend my edit about what the Charter directly calls for.--AladdinSE 22:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist activities before social activities

When discussing Hamas, their history of terrorism should be discussed prior to their history of social welfare programs. For instance, when discussing the organization in the opening paragraph (and I'm paraphrasing here, since this page changes every time I blink my eyes) the initial description of Hamas shouldn't be that they're a group who engages in social programs AND happens to launch deadly terrorist attacks. The harm they do to Israel is far greater, more note-worthy (and makes them more notorious) than the good they do for the Palestinians and so their history of terrorism should take precedence before any mention of their social programs are discussed. When their social activities are discussed first, it gives the impression that their terrorist activities are being downplayed. Let's remember this is still a designated terrorist organization that has committed indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of innocents.--BlueTruth 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of edits for this article and the Talk discussions, you will see that consensus has not allowed insertions of "terrorist" labels directly. It is used only to state what countries, organizations and analysts themselves use the word. Also there is no reason or policy that I know of that compels us to use the order you specified, which is why I am reverting that edit. The harm they do versus the social good they do is entirely a matter of POV. --AladdinSE 22:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And it seems you have your own biased POV concerning this subject so there's little use in arguing with you. The fact remains that Hamas is known primarily for being a terrorist organization and our own State Department has designated it as such. How can one even argue that they do more good than harm, when their actions have led to the deaths of hundreds of innocents? Please explain. --BlueTruth 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe 'your own State Department' has a web page where it can present its views. The aim of this site is not to transmit what that or any other institution thinks about any given subject. We should try to give balanced informations - which can include the views of your government, but may not take it for granted. Bertilvidet 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamas tell us what it is and what it stands for: Mukawama (euphmism for restitance) Zeq 21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My "own biased POV" is much more in line with the consensus repeatedly reached in this Talk discussion (including archives) about the controversial "terrorist" label and when and how it is used in the article. I think you have not quite grasped the concept of Wikipedia as a world-wide neutral reference, with editors from around the world. The "State Department" does not write policy here, however its position and statements are faithfully included. As for "how can anyone argue that they do more harm than good," I think you'll find that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians must think so because they voted them into office. It is no surprise that a people under a repressive military occupation for decades have turned to an extremist faction. Polls consistently show that over 70% of Palestinians support a 2-state solution. They voted en masse for a party that does not because the secular alternative has failed to achieve liberty, justice and equality and has offered only corruption and defeat. An oppressed, humiliated population does not have the luxury of "pure choices" and "absolute standards." Consider that the IRA's political wing Sinn Féin has always enjoyed uninterrupted electoral support even during the height of IRA terrorist activity. Situations like these are never black and white. This is what I think: either Hamas will be orientated to pragmatism by its success in the political sphere, or they will continue with their intransigence and terrorism-against-civilians policies, which will avail them nothing and they will be thrown out of office eventually when they also fail to deliver a State, much less handle the day-to-day running of the PNA. It also behooves us to remember that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel than Israeli civilians killed by all militant Palestinian factions combined. There is no one "bad guy" here. --AladdinSE 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

this is just what i feel about terrorism

i really think hamas is just doing what they think is right for isreal. sure they use violent and morbid ways to handle the sitiuation but in todays world who doesnt use war to take care of something. the president of the usa has declined osamas peace treaty just to keep the WAR on terror going on. and we americans have the WAR on drugs and the WAR on racism and other things that dont sound correct or gives equal treatment to everyone. becuase war has slowly be queitly crept into todays civilazation. hamas is just reinforcing that theroy of getting the job done. and eventually they are going to hit isreal with anthrax and know one is going to be able to stop them. everyone want stop terrorism but they cant. you will never stop terrorism becuase some bozo idiot is going to think that violence is the only way to save the planet from itself. its just how todays world is thinking right now. so i think america should leave the middle east alone now that sadam is gone and they have their own government. but once agian this is just how i feel about these things. but terrorism isnt all that bad and i think we should fight terrorism with terrorism. but that is just my opinion. this is forsaken-soldier siging off

- What you say makes no sense.  How could you equate the punishment of criminals with the brutal murder of innocent civilians?  "War" and "terrorism" are distinct ideas.  Think before you talk.

Intro

The lead is of course a controversial topic. Please discuss changes before editing.

I made a few changes to the intro tonight to get rid of repetition and to make the flow of information more logical. Bertilvidet, you seem to have reverted everything, so I reverted back. I'm sorry for using rollback; I didn't mean to, and I should have left an edit summary. Instead of reverting, can you please say here specifically what you disagree with? I think many if not all of the changes were an improvement, so it would be good not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't revert everything, just the first paragraph. Can you say why? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see - and participate in - the debate above "Steps by steps, paragraphs by paragraphs, intro, sections, conclusion.." and two subsequent sections...After too much time of reverting and debating we seemed to have some consensus about an introdution. Apart from the debate over the content I find the current introduction too long and heavy. Bertilvidet 10:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I shortened it a little and tidied up some of the writing, as it was a little repetitive, and I also tried to move the more salient points higher. Can you say what, specifically, you object to about the section you reverted? [32] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, I suggest however we shorten this paragraph a bit more. Fin it still a bit heavy. What about this:

Hamas (حماس), acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Arabic: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, literally "Islamic Resistance Movement" and Arabic for 'zeal'), is the largest Palestinian Islamist movement. The group is involved in social welfare programs throughout, but is known primarily for its history of suicide attacks against Israeli civilian and military targets.The group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States.

The discussion about its fundings is out here. And also its long term goal of eliminating Israel is left out, since - as discussed later in the article - it is not clear how the organisation consider this long term goal.Bertilvidet 11:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that leaves out some important points. I tried to include at the very top the key newsworthy points viz. known chiefly for its suicide attacks; has stated that its goal is an Islamic Republic; funded in part by Iran; listed as a terrorist group by several countries; won a majority in the election. What is the advantage of leaving some of these points out?

As for the group's long-term goal, we can only go by what's in their charter until they explicitly repudiate it, and they haven't. The election manifesto simply didn't mention it, but also didn't withdraw or replace it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm more of the opinion of Bertilvidet. There is one and only good reason not to insist too heavily on TERROR (which is wikilinked twice in the introduction) - mind you, i'm not saying at all that it shouldn't be stated, i'm no friend of hamas -. But i think that if we want a Wikipedia page on Hamas to be of some use, it is not to carry on mindlessly what the US, Israel & Europe endlessly - and with justifications - state. Why? Because we're simply turning the page into a hate page, which takes no cold distance to analyse what's happening. Of course its terrorist activities should be stated. But why not simply write: "Hamas carries on terrorist activities?" in the introduction, instead of having twice wikilinked TERROR and terrorism, with a long list of countries who consider Hamas to be a terrorist group. This long list would be justified if they're was any controversy on the terrorist nature of Hamas. However, they are none. That's why we can simply writes, the shorter the best, "Hamas is a terrorist group which also carries on social activities." Of course, social activities are no excuse, and they are no excuses for terrorism. But there is no excuse either for blindly believing a state which tells you that they are weapons of mass destruction and that to protect humanity we need to engage in a war which may never end and overthrow various regimes, which we have in the past armed and supported. I recall having read somewhere about the NPOV policy: "NPOV is not consensus, because how would the Arabic Wikipedia turn than?". Well, why could'nt Arabic-speaking people encounter a NPOV which differs from the English NPOV? Wouldn't that be all the more normal, that the viewpoints of Arabic Wikipedia would'nt be the same as the English one (notwithstanding that Arabic-speaking people well know how to fight between themselves)? This is blatant ethnocentrism and Islamophobia, and this is playing the game of the so-called war on terror. The best way to fight terrorism (and by this name I certainly do include state terorrism and so-called counter-terrorism which uses black sites and so on) is not by hate and anathema, but by cold geopolitical understanding of the real stakes at issue. If English-speaking Wikipedians do not understand that Hamas has been elected in large part because of its social activities, and also because the corruption of the Palestinian Authority (for which Israel is largely responsible, mind you), and also because of the failure of the peace process, than this page has no use. Instead of shouting "hamas is evil", which is obvious, this page should explain how come Hamas managed to be elected, while several months ago it was boycotting the elections! This is real NPOV, and this is called political science. I am aware that Wikipedia NPOV results from long negotiations between people who have various POV. Have a look at historical revisionism and you will see what I mean, when one POV impedes an user from trying to enforce some real NPOV. But the interest of all, and it would be good to guard this at mind while writing on the Wikipedia page of Hamas, is to try to be the most coldly descriptive possible. Cold facts are lot more shrilling than outright cries. Tazmaniacs

Seems that we have several distinct discussions here. 1)Tazmaniacs has some very important points about the risk of turning the English Wiki eurocentric, the Western hegemony is noway NPOV! 2) Labelling any group as a terrorist group is a political biased judgement. We shall neither label Hamas as a terrorist group or a charity group. However it is indeed relevant that several states designate it as a terroist groups. 3)The language: I still believe the current introduction has too long sentences and too many details. Thats why I suggest we, in the introduction limit us to these three points: a) The largest Palestian Islamist movement. b) Provides extensive social services. c) Has carried out attacks on Israelis (including civilians) why it designated as a terrorist organization by several states. The more complicated debates about its fundings and what its aims actually are are dealt with in a fine matter in the article. Bertilvidet 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A group who bomb civilian buses, called itself "resistence" and in it's charter called for an anhiliation of a democrtic country is for sure a terrorist entity. Don't "blame it on the west" Zeq 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I agree on that point. But let's spread our opinions other places. And a group that runs hospitals, schools and provide social welfare is for sure a charitable entity. Here my only point is, that these debates do not belong in the introduction. Bertilvidet 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Funds

I think we all agree with you Zek, sincerely. For my part, it is so obvious that Hamas is a terrorist group that it should of course be said - the obvious must be said - but simply doesn't need to be said in three lines (there is a whole section detailing each bombing, isn't there?). I'm not blaming anything on the West, first of all because I don't believe in a dualist opposition between West and East ("Occident against Orientalism???", guy who thought that really was drunk on that day...). Terrorist groups have to pass by an underground economy to finance themselves. As other peoples do. Things are much more complex, and our interest all of us is exposing this complexity. Tazmaniacs

I'm abstaining from editing right now, but please considers that writing this, in the intro:

"Funded, according to the U.S. State Dept, [1] by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, the group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan."

... is simply carrying out without any CRITICAL point of view the US State Dept. informations. Who knows who funds the Hamas? I'm sorry, but this is not at all NPOV. I wouldn't care so much, if I didn't fear the US starting another war, somewhere else... When one wants to speak about terrorism, one must understand that NO terrorist group has been able to support itself on its own. Henceforth, it has always been looking for allies one way or the other. And, due to the nature of politics, these allies change a lot. Furthermore, it is the work of the intelligence agencies of controlling terrorist organizations. The first way to do it is to infiltrate them. And here the ambiguities can begin... Things are not so simple, and surely we Wikipedians are not the one to know who is manipulating who. It is silly to report such claims without any distance. What would have written Wikipedia when the US claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction? Would we have written in the introduction:

"Iraq is a country ruled by dictator Saddam Hussein, allegedly involved in ethnic cleansing (against the Kurds in the 1980s, etc.) and who tried to invade Kuweit in the 1990s. Iraq, according to the U.S. State Dept, has got weapons of mass destruction, and is allegedly in possession of the nuclear bomb. After fighting with Iran during 8 years, it has turned toward Israel, on whom it launched a SCUD during the Gulf War."

What do you think about this??? I also recall that before Arafat's death, everybody was saying he was the main obstacle to peace, and that Israel had nobody to negotiate with. Who's got Israel to talk to now?Tazmaniacs

I found it regrettable that edits are made without previous concertation. Since nobody's has given feedback but that some POV have been pushed, I've felt obliged to moved the majority of the intro in the "overview", as to make the intro the more factual possible, and concentrated on the current issue (Wikipedia should take advantage of its reactiveness). Furthermore, since no comments have been made about those allegations of funding, and that I'm sure I'm not alone in considering that a NPOV requires a Critical Point of View on US State Dept sources concerning those matters, I've NPOVed it adding the allegations concerning MOSSAD's previous support. Fair game. Tazmaniacs 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of people's opinion about the length of the intro, it has to be properly written and encyclopedic. This isn't, because it removes the sources alleging that Hamas is a terrorist group, and inserts "thus qualifying it as ..." which is the editor's personal opinion. The current intro gives a more extensive overview and is sourced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I conserved the current formulation in the intro about Hamas as a terrorist group with the US State Dept source. However, I did put again the discussion about where do Hamas funds come from in the Overview subsection. Please consider again the arguments above. We have no real way of verifying where those funds come from, and if the US State Dept is usually a reliable source for Wikipedia, I am sure many people agree with me that we can't cite it without a Critical Point of View concerning stuffs as Hamas, Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, etc. You do realize that some hawks are pushing for a war against Iran, don't you? You do realize that carrying on the US accusations without any distance, a requirement of objectivity, Wikipedia is not following the neutral point of view policy, and may fall in the trap of being an advocate of this propaganda. I am not at all a supporter of Islamism, but I'm not either a supporter of bringing hell to Iraq because of virtual WMD. Tazmaniacs 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely on the above comment. BTW, why is it so relevant that Hamas is outlawed in Jordan, that it should be mentioned in the very beginning?? As far as I know the Muslim Brotherhood operates legally in Jordan. Bertilvidet 15:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Image caption

Zeq, the image caption is not the appropriate place to provide a "proper explanation" as to the extent of Hamas's territorial aims. The caption is factual and NPOV by describing everything west of the Jordan as "land that Hamas claims as Palestine". The caption doesn't assert that this is equivalent to historical Palestine, or to the reasonable boundaries of any future Palestine state, but only that this is the land that Hamas claims. Perfectly NPOV. It is in the article itself that we must place the explanation that Hamas's territorial goals include ALL of present day Israel in addition the occupied territories. It doesn't belong in the caption, which must be brief, and so I'm removing it. Babajobu 20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Propre or not we can not endorse Hamas view. We need to be NPOV. The map is of what today is israel - this is a fact and as such it is NPOV. Zeq 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a strange view of NPOV.

The Hamas emblem shows two crossed swords, the Dome of the Rock and a map of the land they claim as Palestine (present-day Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). (bold emphasis added)

is the very essence of NPOV and was reached after a great deal of discussion that finally arrived at a consensus. See the archives. We are not endorsing anything, we are describing what Hamas says and portrays in its emblem.

Your version:

The Hamas emblem shows two crossed swords, the Dome of the Rock and a map of present-day Israel (which Hamas claims as Palestine).

is not only POV it is also factually incorrect. The map includes occupied territories that not even Israel claims is part of Israel. --AladdinSE 08:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is Terror Organization.

Dear Wikipedia Admins,

Some Pro-Palestinian Vandalist editing the page and describing Hamas as Islamist Movement.

Currently, by most Western Countries and by most people, Hamas is an Terror Organization for everything.

Hamas was responsible for many Suicide Bombings that killed many innicent victims.

I hope the vandalist will stop editing it and making it Islamist Movement, and they will let the truth goes out - Hamas is Terror Organization.

Comment The consensus (on this page and others) is that the word "terrorist" is a point-of-view word (i.e., one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter). The article already states that Europe, the U.S., and Israel classify Hamas as a terrorist organziation. Wikipedia does not represent any of those entities; it is a global encyclopedia. I hope you will take some time to read the discussion page for the article. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the consensus is based on the idea that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Targeting large groups of civilians for violent death has not historically been a strategy of most liberation movements ("freedom fighters"). However, "terrorist" is a vague and poorly defined word, and carries far more polemical weight than explanatory value. I think this is the source of the consensus not to use it. Babajobu 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that the "freedom fighter" analogy may not be that accurate. I do think that the term "terrorist" is controversial enough that we should stick to using it in the context of who calls who a terrorist versus stating it as a fact. Thanks for the clarification. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• If terrorist is not good enough we can go for "war criminal against civilians" Zeq 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to violate the WP:3RR rule, but insisting that Wikipedia label Hamas as a "terrorist" organization seems to be a political statement to me. I'm not a supporter of Hamas, but I do strongly believe that Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible in such matters. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Status and rights; let's have a real political analysis

AladdinSE, I changed this back to "deal with" as the most NPOV phrase I could think of, because it's not just a question of what the status and rights of Israelis would be under Hamas, but whether they would be killed or expelled. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept that, but I returned the rest of the statement that provides important context about Hamas' concept of abolishing/overthrowing Israeli and secular Palestinian government. It goes to what I was saying above about the importance of distinguishing between destruction and abolition of states and governments. --AladdinSE 09:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted the bit about if they succeed in overthrowing etc only because it seems clear from the context of the paragraph that that's what we're discussing, but if you feel it adds something, that's fine by me. I should have posted here before deleting it. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I know I remember reading something somewhere, about statements and interviews Hamas made talking about how they would not expel Jews and how Jews and Christians had guaranteed rights under an Islamic republic etc etc. We just have to dig those interviews/sources up, I know they're out there. It may have been a BBC World TV news segment, I have to find the transcript. --AladdinSE 09:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what would be even more worthwhile is looking for political analysis from renowned political scientists about Hamas. Hamas, as we begin on this talk page to know, has gone through various phases of organization in its history. What's the common point between the 1987 Hamas, born at the same time as the Intifada; the Hamas of the Intifada al-Aqsa; and the Hamas which just won the elections? What is in commmon between the Hamas supported by Israel as a counterpoint to the PLO, and Hamas supported by Iran as an "ideological friend"? What is in common between Hamas covenant and Hamas realpolitik? What links together Hamas as a political party, Hamas as a social movement, and Hamas as a terrorist organization (those are three different levels of organization and spheres of actions, although I agree with Zek and other that they are related. But his sentence in the intro stating:

"The group is involved in suicide and other homicidal attacks against Jewish Israeli civilians in transportation and marketplace venues, and has directed social welfare programs for Palestinian Muslims throughout the West Bank and Gaza to further its goal of creating an Islamic Republic of Palestine in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip."

is a misleading sentence, because it enforces the POV that the social welfare programs are only a pretext (or an optional mean to achieve the end, which Hamas would dispose of if it could) for the creation of an Islamic Republic. With all my sincere respect to Zek, whom I do not know & I do not judge albeit our political differences (I've always thought that the greatest politics of all is being able to talk & even be friend - or more - with political opponents; actually, I think this is the essence of democracy & wisdom, being able - and enjoying - living with people with whom we disagree; I know too well - albeit luckily not enough - how much blood has been spilled for nothing on both sides), so, with all my respect, I seriously think that the best way to fight against Hamas is by explaining its strategy. Now, to give Zek another, less emotional, argument, I'll say like the marxists used to say: we probably have different political views, but we are objective allies against the Hamas, and none of my edits have been done to legitimate its terrorists tactics nor its islamist ideology). Again: how can we understand how Hamas won those elections, and is thus being turned into a governing party - and we all know what may change between a party that is in the opposition & a party that is in the government -. We shall see what happens, but already before those elections, several political analysts have underlined the fact that Hamas has been forced to pragmatically adapt its views. It doesn't mean they are less fanatical; it means they have changed position in the political field. If you want a comparison that you will like, Zek, maybe you can compare it to how early "revolutionary" fascism was different from fascism at the government, and from fascism at war, which ultimately finished with the nihilism nazism. We gain nothing by analysing political events listening only to our emotions or our ideological - and respectable - views; those important emotions & ideas, which of course play a role in politics, must be mixed with relations of power and the ever-changing field of politics. To provoc you a bit Zek, as I've been too nice this time, who would have thought that Ariel Sharon himself would be the one to prepare the retreat plan - even though critics have pointed out that this served a longer-view strategy. Well, one last provocation (:-) : if you can understand these critics that have been done against Sharon from a Palestinian POV, you probably understand that Hamas may be - is it wisdom or a simple ruse of war? that is to each of us to decide, not to Wikipedia -... let's say smart enough to shut up a bit now that it has the power. I fear the worse, because actually, I think that the worse that could happen may actually be a Hamas that become respectable. For another analogy, I point to Jörg Haider in Australia or Gianfranco Fini in Italia, "respectable neofascists", as if such a thing could exist... Come on guys! let's try to do some real political analysis, together even though we disagree, but we all have to gain something in this, and we are opposing a common enemy. That doesn't necesarily makes us friends, but it should make us be able to work together. Politics is about alliances, not about tears, which are good for our dear mothers & for sensationalism. As said Winston Churchill (i've learnt this today reading Wikipedia! how good can it be!): "If you're going to kill somebody, it cost nothing to be polite before". Tazmaniacs 10:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia not an internet chat forum. Zeq 09:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a Talk section. Nothing has been advocated that would turn the article itself into a "chat forum". --AladdinSE 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

IP 68.211.66.29's changes

I actually think that they were an improvement. Removed weasel words, made the article read more NPOV, and it's certainly not as though they inserted any pro-Palestinian propaganda. Babajobu 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

His edit is a setback. He has edited here under multiple IPs, against consensus (if slim, jayjg and myself are in agreement about wordings this is a rear event) He is most likely some who is on a mission tio improve Hamas public image. They just hired a PR firm. Maybe he is part of it. Zeq 05:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Babajobu 05:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who needs a PR firm when you have Slim, Jayjg anf Zeq making the Israeli POV the consensus POV?--68.211.66.29 00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article reflects "the Israeli POV". Regardless, there is no single Israeli POV on this issue, just as there is no single Palestinian POV. Babajobu 12:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

History & Ideology: which should comes first

The order has been reverted again, coming back to the version where Hamas subsections on belief, the covenant, antisemitism precedes the quick timeline & history. I personally believe that history - actions - are more important than ideological proclamations. In politics, as Hannah Arendt said during the Eichmann trial, you judge people & organizations on acts, not on intentions. Therefore, it is POV to put before the ideology subsection. Furthermore, the history section and timeline allows for a quick overview of what happened since 20 years. Less people know that than that Hamas is antisemitism. For the understanding of the article and of Hamas, and for NPOV, I really think that history should become first, lest we become as much trapped in ideological concerns than they may be. Tazmaniacs

I disagree with your order. The organization and its ideology should be described first, its actions second. This is an encylopedia, not a trial. Wikipedia is not a court of judgment. Poyzin IV 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh? can you explain yourself? If you want to bring this in the discussion, I'll reply that putting the ideology subsection first is not only making Wikipedia "a court of judgment", as you say, but it also puts the burden of the proof on Hamas, instead of on the (more than well-founded) accusations against it. Tazmaniacs

How do you figure that? When I read an encyclopedic entry about a group, I first want to find out who they are and what their stated purpose is. No one has any "burden of proof" to explain on behalf or against Hamas, we're just editors here to describe others' views. By the way, if the editors opinion(s) come through in the article and are blatantly recognizable, then the article is not NPOV. Readers don't need Wikipedia to form their opinion for them. Poyzin IV 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The stated purpose is known by everyone. This doesn't means it should be stated, of course it should. However, it is POV to put five paragraphs of Ideological stuff before the historical acts, which are, regardless of your personal opinions, what matters the most in history, if a theoretical distinction is to be made between history & ideology. Tazmaniacs

Drinking the Blood of the Jews

Which section is best suited for "Drinking the Blood of the Jews" reference? This video was originally downloaded from the official Hamas web site, and I'm not sure where to put it in the article. Jeffsnill 20:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the 'official Hamas web site'? I don't know which Google entry is the official one, and I'd like to check the authenticity of this video for myself because I trust PMW about as much as I trust a Nazi's opinion on human rights. The video seems real, but I don't know if it's dubbed over, and also don't know if this warrants mention in an encyclopedia any more than trash talk by any other particular unknown individuals. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramllaite. "Trashy web site" is not the issue here. Do you think or claim that this is a fabiricated video or that it is real ? I can tell you it sure look real to me. I also saw on Palestinian TV cermon in which the jews are compred to Pigs and monkeies. So over all this video looks real to me. I know it is as repulsive to you to watch it as it is to me to watch it. I know it is as repuklsive for you to watch it as it is for me to watch rabby Kahane but what can we do - there are repulsive ideas outthere. (although Eveb Kahane never suggested driniking blood)

My personal opinion is that this Video should be removed just for being too repulsive but don't take it out on the web site PMW is an accuarte source. Zeq 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't surprise me and I don't think it's fake. However, all I am saying is that I would want to see the original web site because PMW is about as accurate on Palestinians as the president of Iran is accurate about Jews. Itamar Marcus is a pathological liar, based on interviews and lectures I've heard on TV and the web. I don't want to make a big deal, I'm just really interested in seeing the primary source, that's all. Jeff, do you have that? Ramallite ^(talk) 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeffsnill, I think it could go in either the antisemitism section or the attacks against Israel section. Also, regarding Itamar Marcus, you may note that some members of the U.S. Senate seems to have a high regard for Itamar Marcus, since they asked him to testify as an expert on this subject. U.S. Senate Labor-HHS Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on "Palestian Education -- Teaching Peace or War?" http://appropriations.senate.gov/releases/record.cfm?id=214103 Sen. Specter to Chair Hearing Examining Indoctrination of Palestinian Children into Terrorism http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Events.Detail&Event_id=526&Month=10&Year=2003 Doright 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am very aware of the senate hearings (which my comments above are partly based on)... not that the US senate's reputation is high in my mind, though, plus they have had just as partisan people from the Palestinian side testify as well I think. The textbook canard (and I say so since I'm intimately familiar with these textbooks) has been rebuffed by other bodies including a US congress-mandated study that, while not denying some questionable material, found that the offending material did not rise at all to the level described by Marcus and his gang. See also here, here, here, here, and here if you wish to consider opposing views that, while you may consider partisan, are at worst as unreliable as the Marcus gang, but probably much more reliable.

What bothers me most about the video is that drinking of blood (any blood at all) is a sin, like eating pork, and that plus the fact that the words on the video do not synch with the lips of the speaker makes me a bit uncomfortable relying on a secondary source. I do not think the video is fake, but I'm just uncomfortable citing PMW given that the primary source (an official Hamas website) should be readily available. It is a website after all. Why go through partisan sites of questionable integrity when the primary source is supposed to be readily available? Am I being unreasonable here in requesting that, if this delightful video finds its way into the article, it be cited from the original source? That would avoid the "claimed by PMW to be from" phrase that would necessarily have to be included if the primary source is not provided. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess, if you have any source that would dispute the video, you should put it forward. Since you are claiming that it is false it is incumbant upon yourself to prove it. As far as lack of synchronicity, this is common problem of asx files, so I don't think that it disqualifies the source. Jeffsnill 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Media Watch not a reliable source. At least I don't believe it to be. Burden of proof is more the other way around, i think. Tazmaniacs 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to reply without watching it, but I - for whatever reason - finally convinced myself than having a look is better before talking. I was wrong. The question is not even if it's true or not - it may be, as well as it may not be - and anyway there are lots of way to make images - the question is rather if you really want Wikipedia to become a platform for extremist videos? If you really start putting this kind of link, what's gonna stop you tomorrow from putting a video from Zarkawi? believe me, it's not worth it. Tazmaniacs 00:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, if in your POV, PMW is unreliable, that's fine, so long as you realize that this is just your POV. As far as video being somehow "extrimist", that also seems to be a POV too. This just happens to be another video release from Hamas, that would eliminate ambiguity on a question of whether Hamas simply wants to have a Geopolitical reorganization of Israel, or do they also hate Jews. By the way I also don't have a problem with Zarkawi videos (unless you found something in Wikipedia policy against it) Jeffsnill 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you really need a video to show that they "hate Jews". I also think that you are doing a big mistake in "not having any problem with Zarkawi video". I do, and if Wikipedia policy hasn't have any policy against it, that only point out that Wikipedia has a long way to go. As does also this revisionism page, which has a hard time surviving revisionist attacks. Why I am bringing this up? Because not all sources are acceptable, and i'm sure you can make your point without having to rely on some bloody stupid video. I think you really should think twice about "not having a problem" with videos where they split people's heads in two... Tazmaniacs 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is so far behind you, then what are you doing there? I’m sure the “elevated” fellow like yourself should be confined to more “dignified” places, and let us mortals deal with earth matters like articles in Wikipedia articles on terrorist organizations. I have already pointed out to the idea of PMW being unacceptable is only your POV, especially when we deal with video, and not a mere report. The burden of proof is now on you. As for your certainty of unnecessity of showing the video to show that Hamas hates Jews, you should read some of the discussion above to disabuse yourself of the notion. Jeffsnill 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs brings up a good point, and in a way echoes previous sentiments I had against these contentious articles on WP turning into some sort of hate-infested quotation contest (or in this case, video contest). Anyway, back to what I was going to say: in my first edit in this section I wrote "The video seems real". In the next edit I wrote "I do not think the video is fake". So I am quite astounded that in response I am hit with " Since you are claiming that it is false it is incumbant upon yourself to prove it." ?!?!?!? Please take the time to read and understand what I am writing before responding. It would help things along. Let me repeat: when you introduced this magnificent work of art in this section, you took it for granted that you were going to add it and only said "This video was originally downloaded from the official Hamas web site". Since you seemed to know all about it, I only asked you to point out that 'official Hamas web site' that it was downloaded from, because I did a quick search and didn't find it (I admit I've never seen an official Hamas web site, but I've never looked for one before last night either). As an aside, I pointed out that PMW is a hysterical and truth-bending source, but it's still a source. It would just make sense that the original site that you referred to be cited as the source, for no other reason than it being the primary source and because that's how you introduced it here. Simple, really. Now, if for whatever reason you are either unable or unwilling to provide the 'official Hamas web site' that you yourself referred to, please just say so. Thanks. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC) oh - and I repeat, I do NOT think it is fake, but I would like to see the original source. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeffsnill, apparently, Natan Sharansky, the ex-Soviet dissident and current Israeli cabinet member and diplomats in the Israeli parliament think Itamar Marcus and his Palestian Media Watch are important SOURCES FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS OF ARABIC SOURCES as does the U.S. Senate. Since http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/234mdvxc.asp http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2003/2003B10840.htmlDoright 05:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL - that's a good one! Ramallite ^(talk) 14:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even discussing the source (although it was strangely introduced to the least, & some may be interested in reading this [33] from Le Monde diplomatique), just the validity of broadcasting certain types of videos. I'm sorry, but till now I don't think the "Al Qaeda" entry is broadcasting bloodthirsty videos of Zarkawi in Iraq, and should it do so, I think we would be many Wikipedians to consider it vandalism. Tazmaniacs 15:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is an argument (read discussions above) on whether Hamas merely seeks to eliminate the geo-political entity-Israel or whether they hate Jews and want to kill them. This video should clarify the issue. As for the original source, you should probably contact PMW, and they will guide you to it. Jeffsnill 15:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean you are arguing with others about such subtleties about the ideology of an extremist movement. I have to admit that I don't quite see the difference between "merely seeking to eliminate the geo-political entity-Israel" or "whether they hate Jews and want to kill them", except maybe that you didn't decide this morning to come to debate about this leaving passions behind. Maybe if you said: I want to prove that Hamas is not only antizionist but also antisemitic it would work better? The video doesn't clarify nothing, as it is not a proof in itself and that you should probably contact PMW if you're interested at it. Furthermore, this is a talk page about the encyclopedia, I've been told, and not a place to put spam-links or having "terror titles". Next time maybe you'll think something about "Controversed video"? Are you really interested in improving the article, or only wanted to brought up the subject in its talk page? And what makes you think that you can forget NPOV in talk pages? Tazmaniacs 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew it! Itamar Marcus has an exclusive rights deal with Hamas for early access to their latest videos before they are released (if ever) to the general public. I'm going to surmise that you couldn't find it either. Fantastic. No I will not contact PMW, I have more important things to do with my time than to propagate hatred. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Hamas has created a network of social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza this is Hamas' POV, hardly NPOV. ems 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

some other topic

It's a matter of fact. Where does the POV come into it? This article is basically an appalling heap of shite, and has been ever since people got interested in Hamas once they won the elections, but this is hardly one of the problems. Palmiro | Talk 16:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What is this deletion frenzy? if it's a "heap of shite", nobody forces it in reading it. When you say that stating Hammas is a Sunni organization is irrelevant, than I have a hard time in believing in your good faith. Same goes for multiple deletions of sources, references, whole paragraphs, etc. You don't like what the Canard Enchaîné writes? Nobody forces you to like it, to believe it or anything. It is a legitimate source, which you can identify following the link. So long... Next time a total revert is in order with this kind of behavior, deleting a whole paragraph on the new development without putting it to talk page first or moving it somewhere else. You do realize Wikipedia is written by people who disagree together, don't you? Tazmaniacs 17:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but being Suni is the not the main issue about Hamas. see this: [34] Zeq 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not engaged in a deletion frenzy, so please assume good faith and be civil. I am not sure about how good a source Le Canard Enchaine is (how thoroughly does it check its facts?); neverthless, it was not me who deleted that. As for Sunni, the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam is not of massive importance in the Palestinian context to put it mildly, and there is nothing so specifically Sunni about Hamas to warrant this being one of the first five or six words in the article. That can certainly be mentioned later on. The Muslim Brotherhood connection (which people keep trying to associate for some bizarre reason with the Egyptian rather than the Palestinian branch of the organization) is one example of something far more significant. Palmiro | Talk 17:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse-me Palmiro, as you point out it wasn't you but some other guys - Zek? - that suddenly decided to erase all of this. The Canard Enchaîné is certainly a valid mainstream source. Now, about the specific Sunni question - let's talk seriously about something - how can you say it is not relevant when, first of all, this is an Encyclopedia which should certainly state if Hamas is sunni or chiite, since this is two main division of Islam. Beside, Palestinian context or not, it is totally relevant because, in case you didn't follow what's happening Zek, you do know that Hamas has got connexiones to chiites, don't you? And you do know that this is quite strange, as Zarkawi certainly doesn't? It must be stated in the first part, because where you're going to state it then? This is so ridiculous, not wanting to say that Hamas is a Sunni organization. Beside being totally non-encyclopedical, what does it really matters to you? That maybe some understand things are a bit more complex than a view of the world which want us to believe in so-called "civilization clashes" and "religious wars"? I'm sorry, I'm not into this kind of ideology, which I despise as much as Hamas. Tazmaniacs 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly the strangest thing in the region if you start from an expectation that everyone must form cohesive sectarian blocks: cf Michel Aoun and Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah and the Syrian government, the Iranians' close relations with Armenia, need I go on? I don't have any objection to the matter being included in the article, but I find it odd and jarring as one of the first words used to describe Hamas - but perhaps that is partly because I am familiar enough with the region to know that there is no Shiite presence of any significance in Palestine. I am certainly not goiung to make a stand on the issue if other people think it should go back in. Palmiro | Talk 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Palmiro. I am more than intimately familiar with the region, I am actually a native of the region, and it is sort of odd that 'Sunni' is there in the first sentence. Hamas has certainly never defined itself as such, and this whole Shiite/Sunni business was grossly exaggerated by the Americans over the Iraq invasion. There is no relevance or significance in stating they are 'Sunni' any more than stating that they are 'bearded'. I'd say it's best to have in the intro the accepted and significant definitions of the movement, as defined by the movement itself and as regarded internationally. 'Sunni' does not fit either. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, beards come to most people's minds quicker than the sunna when Hamas is mentioned! Palmiro | Talk 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal not to give taxes to Palestinians?

When I heard that Israel decided not to give the taxes collected for the Palestinians to them because Hamas wants to destroy Israel I wondered if this does not break any treaties? Who paid these taxes? I wonder why I cannot find anything about this in the news. 84.59.93.80 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is more important to note that Israel's behaviour doesn't serve any meaningful goal. Cutting the money only helps to unite Fatah and Hamas supporters. Like the film "Munich" showed it, in politics you don't act rational. You only appeal to emotional values; and it's sad that this often means outright retaliation. --Keimzelle 20:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think an encyclopedia is for speculation about effects of actions. An encyclopedia is for reporting facts. So I would like to know if there are treaties broken or not. 84.59.103.81 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I admit not knowing anything about the legal situation.--Keimzelle 09:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Palestinians payed those taxes. Israel is not violating any treaties since the taxational formula isn't based on a treaty. Even if it was based on one, they can simply legislate it as being null so long as it involves an entity which call for its destruction. El_C 08:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I doesn't understand this... If it isn't based on a treaty, why do they even justify not transferring the taxes? "Well, they hate us and they want to destroy us?" - I really begin to laugh because this is PR. The Israeli government should be more honest and should transfer tax incomes under no circumstances.--Keimzelle 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They justify it in saying the money will be used in an attempt to destroy them. El_C 07:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

About the money: legal or not leagl ?

My personal opinion that it is un leagal to hold the money.

What i suggest as far as Wikipedia, is to understand that israel is in the middle of election campign. Instead of reverting each other 100 times over an issue that yet did not occur (previous payment was delivered albeit in 7 days delay) why don't you wait until March 28 (israel election) and see what took place.

BTW, most news reports are wrong and cirrent decision is onlt to withhold the money after palestinian goverment is active which maybe even after march 28 .

So cool down and wait. Zeq 09:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

majority consensus  ? "Enough is Enough"

Some pro Hamas editor claimed that "majority consensus " is to dilute what hamas has done (including vilations of it's own self declared Hudna) he wamts to hide the suicide bombings etc..

I know, this is Wikipedia, home of the lefty Biased west Academia but Enough is ...... Enough

You want to drag me to ArbCom on trying to keep this article NPOV. be my guest. Exposng ArbCom bias is important as well. Zeq 11:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Lefty biassed west academia? lol Palmiro | Talk 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Eeeh, is Hamas leftist?? We forgot to write that in the article! Bertilvidet 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, do you have any specific complaints about the article? If you do, please bring them up here, but otherwise there's nothing anyone can do to rectify your complaints.--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

was refering to this revert: [35] which since have been reverted back to slim revision. Zeq 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If I understand well, Zeq you are only contesting the fact that I placed parts of the intro in the "overview" subsection & the "Following the January 2006 legislative elections". Why did I do this? Because the intro was getting too large; because also, while someone (maybe you?) had (rightly i think) transferred a large part of the intro to the "following the January elections" subsection in order to tighten up the intro, at the same time this transfer put back the previous version of the intro, which was completely POV (mainly, it tried to speak about what happened following the elections, without speaking either about Israel's moves, nor about the Fatah's moves, nor about Hamas declarations themselves, which, whether you like them or not, believe them or not, are certainly a change from previous declarations.) To repair this POV reversal, I put together both parts concerning the events following the elections (the one moved to "january elections" subsection & the one replaced in the "intro"). Like this, arguments such as "Hamas still follows the destruction of Israel" were'nt separate from recent declarations that it would abandon "armed struggle" if Israel recognized 1967 borders & withdraw itself from all Palestinian occupied territories. I suppose it is the most NPOV way to deal with, so actually, you're reversal is more pov. Your request for arbitration is not motivated by anything precise, it seems. Tazmaniacs 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems better and far more clear after Tazmaniacs' latest edit. Bertilvidet 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea was correct but it tried to put into emphasis marginal issues such as the consipracy theories that Mossad is behind Hamas finacing. Take a look now, I rearanged it based on the idea that Tazmanics suggested. Zeq 15:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you remember well Zeq, the inclusion of these so-called "conspiracy theory" supported by United Press International, the Canard Enchaîné, and L'Humanité - henceforth a main news agency, and two important French national newspapers, one of whom is famous for being the best investigative newspaper in France -- was added to counter the US Department's allegations that Hamas was funded by Iran and others. US lied concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there is no reason to believe them without any distance taken concerning Hamas. A NPOV has to be a critical point of view. Tazmaniacs 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I included this in the article but you can not move it to talk. Also for NPOV you must find a source that dispute this or say that it was during th time When hamas was not yet a terror organization. (alleged mossad funding was in the 80s but military wing established in the 90s) Zeq 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of "NPOV", I should look for sources saying that my sources lie? Isn't that utterly absurd? Or I should find a source that says that Hamas didn't yet engage in terrorism activities? There is no need for a source telling that Hamas didn't engage in the time in terrorist activities, since nobody is claiming the reverse. What's up man? Tazmaniacs 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

This topic is full of references to their dislike of Palestinians. You can only call a carrot orange for so long. I'm going to try to clean up the redundancy and try to put in more references to Hamas' other activities.

Sgarza 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also work on cleaning up the redundancy of other countries' responses to Hamas' victory. The article repeats itself in several places. Perhaps you could / should call in someone from the Cleanup Taskforce to help. (Just stopping by and saw some things that need work.) --Avery W. Krouse 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundancies could be avoided if instead of systematically reverting, Zeq, you tried to formulate again keeping in mind NPOV and also the necessity to avoid redundancies. I've been trying to eliminate them; each time you reverse to the previous versions, so we have talks about the hudna, for example, in two parts of the article at least instead of once; you speak about "Hamas spearheading the Second Intifada" after speaking of the January elections, without respect of any chronological order and without taking into account that the elections have a subsection dedicated to debate about it and new facts. You're the one to have made a RfA claiming that we keep on reverting your changes; actually, you're the one reversing any attempt in improving the article, because you just don't like what's happening. Wikipedia is here to report what others report, that's it. Tazmaniacs 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

let's use talk.

You can not push this mossad funding to the top. This is a serious article not a place for conspiracy theories. Zeq 17:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All right. This is a serious article? Please refrain from constant reversing then. There is no conspiracy theory, don't be silly! Anyway, it is not Wikipedia which will judge if the United Press International news agency or the Canard Enchaîné carry on conspiracy theories... You can't either push Iran funding to the top, in this case. Do you have proof for this "conspiracy theory"? Apart from the US Dept claims, which are not anymore reliable that the claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Beside, you can't put in the overview only the POV that Hamas hates Israel (thank you, but this is a serious article, not a blog!). You must take into account recent declarations. Reuters has done it, why should'nt you accept it? Maybe Reuters suffers from a "left-wing Occidental bias"? As if Hamas was left-wing!... I'm abstaining from reverting your blind revert immediately, because i must go now. Tazmaniacs 17:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Beside, writing "During the second Intifada, Hamas spearheaded the violence through the years of the Palestinian uprising." without adding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement is a blunt lie. Tazmaniacs 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine I'll move funding further down. Zeq 17:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As you proposed, I put all funding concerns in the same "funding" subsection. Concerning the "overview" subsection, you insist on putting in only your version, which doubles with the rest of the article. I think it should be suppressed & contents moved to relevant subsections. Tazmaniacs 18:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Rvv. Zeq, instead of improving the article & helping us avoid redundancies, you keep on reverting to outdated versions. Could you please rationalise your behavior here? Instead of losing your time doing this, you could go looking for sources in order to improve the article (I had to add that Hamas created a TV program for children, because you just didn't look somewhere for that info - which shows how Hamas carries on its propaganda). Why don't instead of keeping on doing these blind reverts which are getting nowhere you'll look for some serious sourced info? Tazmaniacs 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

About the "Beliefs" subsection

This subsection is divided in two parts, first one unnamed and second one called the "Hamas covenant". The second one, according to its name, quotes the Covenant to define Hamas' beliefs. The first one mixes quotes from the Covenant (thus creating redundancies with the subsection immediately following) and acts or statements made by Hamas, during the campaign for elections, for example. Henceforth, it mixes Hamas' charter with historical facts that should be included where they belong, i.e. in the history subsection. Unsurprisingly, the only historical facts in that first subsection of "Belief" are statements by Hamas saying it does not recognize Israel, ignoring other contrary statements. This is manipulation of historical events. Tazmaniacs 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Three minor changes

Zeq, what is the matter? I made some small changes in the introduction, that you all deleted without explanation:

1) The social network of Hamas is extensive, important to understand the organisation's anchoring in the society. 2) They kill Israeli civilians. Why do you want to point out "Jews"? They kill indiscriminately without checking the confession of the victims. 3) I dont find it crucial to mention in the introduction which specific places they usually chose for their attacks.

I refuse to participate in your revert-war. But please argue for all the three points. Bertilvidet 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya right, they don't just kill jews they enetr resturants in Arab towns as well.....

As far as social network, the artickle describes it well.

Zeq 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to argue for reverting my changes. Please comment on the above three points. And what is the point about mentioning jews in their killings? For most readers killing indiscriminately against Israelis is no better. Bertilvidet 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop and use talk

I restored to SlimVirgin stable and consensus version.

You want to suggest 100 changes please use talk and list them here or start a private version on sand box.

This way of massive changes and reverts will lead no where.

Thank You. Zeq 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Slimvirgin stable and consensus version" except in your imagination. See your request for arbitration. Changes made today were all attempts in reducing redundancies, as an user asked above. NO CONTENT WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN DELETED by me! I've only MOVED all content concerning "elections" in the "elections" subsection & all contents concerning "fundings" in the "funding" subsection you created, & all contents concerning the truce in the "truce" subsection you created. After the creation of those two subsections (by you), there was nothing much left in the "overview" subsection which was not repeated in other parts. So if this "overview" which simply doubles with the "intro" is empty, it should be deleted as a subsection. I've deleted nothing, to the contrary of you who deleted (for the second time) the Canard Enchaîné reference which u don't like. You are going no where boy! Again, instead of going into edit-war, why don't you go look up for some serious info which could help our understanding of this extremist group? Tazmaniacs 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what ? I am out. Do with this article what ever you want. I requested that you stop and talk . Only a really stupid person would think that Mossad fnace Hamas terrorism. Zeq 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's well known the IDF backed Hamas throughout the 80s as a counterweight to Ashaf. See the article on חמאס, section 2.1. El_C 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This disturbing box is still on the top of the article. I think the article has become far better - the most blatant cases of POV (like endorsing the labelling of Hamas as a terror organization, or labelling their suicidal attacks as acts of resistance) are gone. So, if you still have problems with the neutrality, please list the problems here one by one. And lets discuss them with the aim of reaching a consensus. Bertilvidet 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have state mine. A lot of this article is Hamas' POV. I brought an example above. ems 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That we state the fact that Hamas has created a network of social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza, which probably is the main activity of the organisation???? Bertilvidet 19:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is fallacious to assume that an item is neutral by refusing to comment on the nature of an organization. Positive lights of otherwise unseemly organizations are just as biased as putting them in a negative light. An organization's behavior and the consequences are not subject to "points of view" - if an organization, such as Hamas, commits acts of inhumanity for the purpose of causing terror, it is immediately a terrorist organization, and should be labeled as such. To oppose this isn't "neutrality", it is bias for, rather than against, Hamas. It is, in essence, denying that Saddam Hussein was a member of the Ba'ath party. A series of actions that he knowingly carried out assured that he was a member of a certain organization. By knowingly following certain behaviors, the Hamas organization has joined the international organization known as global terrorism, on a more domestic scale. Furthermore, given that they are "resisting" the Zionist state of Israel, it is not bias to say that their bombings are a form of resistance, the militants are attempting to challenge and resist the authority of Israel, thus, it is a resistance. Ezedriel 01:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Logo caption: "West Bank and Gaza Strip" Vs. "Palestinian Authority"

There was a great deal of discussion last year about how to word the Hamas logo caption, and a consensus was reached that stayed in place for a long time. Zeq has been changing the designation of the territories from "West Bank and Gaza Strip" to "Palestinian Authority". This is not accurate. The PA is a government apparatus, not a nation-state or geo-political entity. --AladdinSE 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the way it is now. "Israel and the Palestinian territories" can also work. Zeq 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Palestinian Authority" definitely does not refer to a geographic area but a political apparatus. Unfortunately, many Israeli outlets refer to it as a geographic area (e.g. "Secretary of State Rice will visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority" or "the wounded boy is from Salfit in the Palestinian Authority"). This is incorrect if not absurd. "Palestinian territories" would be acceptable, since it's defined in WP as a geographic area, but Palestinian Authority is unsuitable. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent comments by Hamas chosen PM

Hi, I added the following:

On February 25th the Hamas chosen Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, told Washington Post in an interview.

We do not have any feelings of animosity toward Jews. We do not wish to throw them into the sea. All we seek is to be given our land back, not to harm anybody.[36]

These statements are a complete reversal from its previous policy towards Israel.

Apparently this was deleted. I don't know why.

Bless sins 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to post everything what they are going to say now? it'll be deleted again, because, it's irrelevant. --tasc 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a huge section about arguments for labelling Hamas anti-semitic. So, now there are signs that this is changing you say it is 'irrelevant'. Howcome? Bertilvidet 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough; I agree the part wasn't relevant in the section about the elections. I shortened and moved the quote to the section about anti-semitism. Bertilvidet 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He already released a message that he was misquoted by wash post Zeq 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

POV pushing by an anon editor continue. He revertes to no end. Clearly a sockppupet as he knows too much about wikipedia to be here randomly. Zeq 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive.

I nominated the Hamas article fro Article Improvement Drive, as I believe the article can be much more clear and comprehensive if an effort is done. If you agree, please cast your vote at Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Hamas User:bertilvidet

US policy in intro?

This article is about Hamas, and should mainly give an understanding of that organization. I find it thus misplaced to mention in the introduction that US freezes its aid to Palestine unless the new government follow the socalled three principles. Bertilvidet 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only US, EU as well. Not to mention that US's and european is the only money Palestine has. It's important. It looks like you're misguiding editors! you've changed international community to US and now complain that US mentioned. --tasc 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your confustion. It is correct that EU first took that decision. However, after critics the EU decided last week to realease its aid in order to avoid a breakdown of the Palestinian administriation. [37]. As long as there is no UN decision I will object the use of the term 'international community'. Bertilvidet 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, honestly it is difficult to assume good faith when you continue to revert and insert unsubstained claims. You even give a source [38] which clearly says The so-called Quartet of Britain, Russia, the United States and the UN, is no longer in accord. To the intense irritation of United States and British officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have broken the common front by inviting Hamas leaders to Moscow for talks - even without agreeing to the three conditions that the Quartet has demanded of Hamas: to disarm and disavow terrorism, to recognize Israel and to accept previous agreements with it. As I explained above the EU changed its policy last week. How can you then, in good faith and without participating in the talks, still claim that The Quartet of international community (composed of: The UN, The EU, US and Russia) [3] announced that future aid to the Palestinians is tied to "Three Principles"[4] set by the international community? This seems very manipulative. I believe it is in the interest of all to attempt to be as accurate as possible. Bertilvidet 23:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zeq.

First I do not understand what you business is in reverting and deleting sources without participating in the talk. Please dont accuse me [39] for not participating in talk and threaten me with ArbCom, when the talk page clearly displays that I try to reach a discussion about your constant reverts, and you have not replied one single time. US and EU have threatened to withdraw their aid to PNA if the new government does no accept the three conditions, EU has afterwards decided to fund the PNA anyway. I have not heard about Russian and UN agreeing on freezing the funds. If this is the case please provide a source before you re-enter it. Bertilvidet 09:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources are clear. It is the quartet not just the west or US. (it is only Hamas that calls it "the west")

Russia agreed to meet Hamas and presented it with the exact 3 conditions. EU have promised temopraray aid but when Hamas goverment takes effect the EU demanded that it will meet the 3 conditions. It is all n the sources just read.... Zeq 09:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What's clear in the WP source is: The United States and its allies in the so-called Quartet for Middle East policy -- the United Nations, the European Union and Russia -- got off to a good start by spelling out three conditions.... Therefore, let us state simply that, an not insert "international community" because the Quartet is clearly mentioned; we should say quartet.--AladdinSE 14:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jordan ban in introduction

On Feb 12 I raised the question whether Jordans ban of Hamas is relevant for the introduction. Noone reacted. But Tasc put it back in the introduction. This point is not important for me, but if you think it is, please tell us why.Bertilvidet 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

it does highlight nature of hamas. reason for ban may serve good example of what the prospective "talks" with israel and/or int. community may led to. --tasc 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

anyway, it's not mentioned anywhere in the article! I'd say it's best place to put it. --tasc 21:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Was there a good source for it? If not it shouldn;t be there. Palmiro | Talk 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably it is true, and finding a source shouldnt be a problem. But still, I cannot see how it highlights the natur of Hamas...Democratic countries like US, EU and Israel label it as a terror organization, so what extra does it tell thta its banned in the Kingdom of Jordan? Bertilvidet 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jordan is arab and muslim country which is banned Hamas. It seems to me important to show that Hamas is not only "considered" by West but in fact IS terrorist organization. --tasc 10:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please find a source ASAP. Secondly, I dont consider King Abdullah as the holder of the truth, so I dont buy his view as a proof that Hamas objectively is a band of evil-minded people...many secular Arab leaders are harsh on radical islamists (Assad, Mubarrak). Bertilvidet 10:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for what? That Hamas is banned? BBC. Secondly, many radical islamists perform terror attacks in a name of their religion. Shall we buy their point of view? Objectively, Hamas is banned in Jordan. Let it stay in the article. --tasc 11:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That article says that the Jordanians closed down its offices and threw out its leaders - for whom the country had previously been a base. That's something that belongs in the history of the organization. I doubt that Jordan bans it as a terrorist organization. If you want a statement that it is banned in Jordan, please come up with a source that says so. Palmiro | Talk 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that, if it belongs to Histrory why you've removed that sentence completly? Why not move it to history section? --tasc 06:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Read my comment a little more carefully please, I didn;t say that the sentence I removed from the intro belongs in the history section. From my point of view, life is far too short to go looking for information to put into an article that is constantly being chewed up. If the article was in some sort of stable condition I might. Also, the history section is grossly inadequate in other ways. But feel free to put correct info in there if you wish to. Palmiro | Talk 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, only the EU, US and Israel should be quoted in the introduction, as the EU & the US are members of the Quartet. Australia & CAnada are not, nor Jordan. These three countries should be quoted afterward. If the only object of adding all of these countries is demonstrating that not "only the West consider it a terrorist movement", it's quite unnecessary. Any sane mind recognizes violence where it takes place, the only problem is that in that particular conflict violence has been going on on both sides since several decades. Tazmaniacs 17:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The theree conditions - quote from Washington post

"Quartet for Middle East policy -- the United Nations, the European Union and Russia -- got off to a good start by spelling out three conditions for Hamas to meet in exchange for recognition:

• the renunciation of violence,
• acceptance of Israel and
• agreement to existing Palestinian-Israeli accords. "

[40] Zeq 09:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to write a few lines here on the talk page in connection to you major edits and continous reverts. Your source (it would be better to find something but an editorial, but anyway) talks about conditions for recognizing Hamas - and in the article you still write that the Quartet announced that future aid to the Palestinians is tied to "Three Principles". These are two different issues. I have made it clear several times, so I can hardly still assume good faith. You know from previous discrepancies that I refuse to participate in your revert wars. So if you please accept the disputed tag, go ahead and write anything in the article...this is the weakness of Wikipedia. Bertilvidet 09:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW one thing that is clear (including in the sources you provide) is that the international community is in deep division about how to deal with the coming Hamas government. Why dont we present the different views (isolation versus corporation)? What is the aim as presenting the Quartet as united, when they aren't?? Bertilvidet 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you imply by "division"? That Hamas is welcomed in Moscow? Well, Moscow do not give any financial help to Palestine and it did try to vow to Israel recognition, etc. --tasc 10:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

US and France disapproved Moscow inviting Hamas. Now only US and Israel stop their funds. It is a classical dilemma how to moderate an extremist group coming to power. The two articles [41] [42] provided by Zeq give a good overview of the split within the Quartet.Bertilvidet 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All I can tell you is TO READ THE SOURCES. They are clear and they are not what you claim theyr are. read carefully. Zeq 11:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

READING THE SOURCES provides this: More confusion has emerged over the way that the international community views Hamas. The so-called Quartet of Britain, Russia, the United States and the UN, is no longer in accord. To the intense irritation of United States and British officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have broken the common front by inviting Hamas leaders to Moscow for talks - even without agreeing to the three conditions that the Quartet has demanded of Hamas: to disarm and disavow terrorism, to recognize Israel and to accept previous agreements with it. .--AladdinSE 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I read it the same way. Shouldn't we mention that the international community is divided / confused about how to deal with a Hamas-led government? Obviously they agree on the aim, namely moderating Hamas, pushing it towards recognize of Israel etc. The differences is about how this aim is attained, which strategy to follow (isolation versus embedment). Bertilvidet 14:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no objection to citing sources like these to show that there has been some differences and confusion. As long as we state that the Quartet did in fact make the 3 conditions for continuation of aid, even if they have not been followed through with perfect synchronization among the different members.--AladdinSE 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

US Funding Hamas

Can anyone explain why US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch in Jerusalem on Sunday, 26 February 2006, stated to Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz that the United States will continue sending humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people even after a Hamas government is formed. Read the caption beneath the AP photo of Shaul Mofaz on this page http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/israel_palestinians;_ylt=AiUfcYsimuv4tYNRVWKx2n6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--. (I had posted this URL earlier, but now I see that its story has become totally different. Therefore, I have submitted a question about this to the State Department and I am waiting to get a clarification.)

--66.81.192.16 10:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide relevant link? --tasc 10:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The link is the URL from the Yahoo! News page I first gave. Here is the exact text beneath the AP photo.

:AP - Tue Mar 7, 4:51 AM ET Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, center, walks ahead to his meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, not seen, in Jerusalem Sunday Feb. 26 2006. The United States will continue sending humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people even after a Hamas government is formed, Welch told Palestinian leaders during the first high-level meeting between the two sides since Hamas' election victory. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

I hope this suffices. --66.81.192.16 11:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps, if the Palestinean were not getting showered with money from Iran, US, Palestinean expatriates and everyone with money on this planet, then they would have to choose between housing and food versus buying bombs and arms to blow people up. At least the suicide bomber would know that he has to work and help his family. I mean when the US gives money to Hamas, then Hamas gives it to the family of the "martyrs" in the form of stipends or lump sums. Therefore, this cycle will continue for good.

The article titled "Palestinians Return Some U.S. Cash" from Mar 2, 2006, 5:08 PM EST by ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer, on the Mail Tribune Web site, explains that the Fatah party will return $46 million in unspent direct donations. However, David Welch stated that some of that money will probably be redirected to humanitarian projects. "Because it serves important U.S. national interests, we are looking for ways to help the Palestinian people, particularly through provision of assistance to help meet basic humanitarian needs," Welch told the House International Relations Committee. Source:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PALESTINIANS?SITE=ORMED&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Suicide bombing redirects to Suicide attack

The editors who keep reverting the correctly directed phrase to a capitalized "Suicide bombing" in the middle of the second sentence make Wikipedia look stupid. --68.214.35.104 01:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Logical order

The incoherence of the first paragraph makes Wikipedia look like it was written by people who are not native English speakers:

1. Terrorism: "It is best known throughout the world for carrying out Suicide bombings and other attacks primarily against Israeli civilians, as well as military targets, to further its goal of creating a Palestinian state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. 2. Social welfare: Hamas has created an extensive network of social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza, explaining part of its popularity. 3. Terrorism: The group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States.

The logical order would be: Hamas has created an extensive network of social welfare programs throughout the West Bank and Gaza, explaining part of its popularity. It is best known throughout the Western world for carrying out suicide attacks|suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis to further its goal of creating an Islamic Palestinian state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. The group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States.[1]

I tried to fix it but for some reason, the non-native speakers keep messing it up. --68.214.35.104 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of non-English native speakers, it is a silly edit-war between those who prefer to put the social welfare program after the suicide bombings and before the condemnation of the group as a terrorist organization. You are totally correct that the logical order would be the one you proposed. Tazmaniacs 17:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad POV

I am sorry to speak so frankly, but this article has turned really bad POV. It is so obvious that I wouldn't bother to tag it.

Going to any article on Wiki I would expect to find some factual and balanced information about the subject. This is not the case here. The introduction is not about Hamas, it is about reasons for disliking Hamas: about their attacks on civilians, and a big part of the introduction is about what external actors want from Hamas. Still we dont know anything about the organisation.

I have been looking at other boogeyman organizations and persons, but havent found any one bad described as Hamas. Take a look at Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party or Milosovic' Socialist Party of Serbia, these articles are about the actual parties, even many things can be said about people, organisations and states who disliked them.

May I suggest, that we try to turn this article into an article about Hamas - and then leave it to the reader to conclude normatively. And of course there should be paragraphs about Israel's and other international actors' views on Hamas being in office. But come on, as it is now it is too obvious just an indictment. Bertilvidet 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I disgaree with you. If you have specific issues please raise them. This article editors have worked hard to make it as balanced as it is. Zeq 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Bertilvidet, you are right. The article is constantly being biased by people who hate and fear Hamas and want others to think like they do. The article is not objective. It is written by Israelis. --68.19.4.7 03:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the above comment is by a banned user called Alberuni. He was able to insert quite a few pro hamas POV into the article. Zeq 05:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have nominated the Hamas article fro Article Improvement Drive, I assume that all of us involved in this article, despite other disagreements, will agree with me on the need for improving the article. So please have a look at Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Hamas. Bertilvidet 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Zeq 22:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Change to opening paragraph

I don't concern myself with internal Wikipedia drama and am only looking to improve this article so I changed the first sentence to reflect the fact that HAMAS is now most well-known as being the ruling party of the PA. The sentence then seques into how they are also a violent organization known for its terrorist operations. I think this is a more educational stance. anarcho_hipster

Mixed up Dates - Two Suggested Changes

The following quote is taken from the Wikipedia Article on HAMAS: "Hamas' first use of suicide bombing occurred on April 16, 1993 when a suicide bomber driving an explosive-laden van detonated between two buses parked at a restaurant [17]. Hamas described it as a response to a mass-killing of 29 praying Palestinians by an American-born Jewish settler in a Hebron Mosque 40 days earlier."

The attack did happen as described, however it was not in retaliation for the Baruch Golstein massacre. Goldstein killed 29 praying Palestinian civilians in a mosque in Hebron on 25 Febuary 1994 - 10 monthe after the cited attack (this is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Goldstein). In fact HAMAS rataliated for Goldstein's terror attack with its own terror attack the following April - 6 April, 1994. I suggest making this change to the site as well as linking the mention of the 6 April attack to Goldstein's entry. Tim

Terrorist organization

I understand that we shouldn't say that they are a terrorist organization. I think that the third sentence (compared to the way the article is presently situated) should say that "Hamas is labelled a terrorist organizaton by XYZ." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

it's exactly what the article does say. The group is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and the United States --tasc 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Life is too short to edit articles about Palestine/Israel

OK, you guys are never going to agree. The recent actions of the democratically elected US governments, Republican and Democrat, have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian people IN MY LIFETIME (what was it in Vietnam? 2 million?) but no reputable Encyclopaedia has ever to my knowledge called the US a terrorist organisation, however much food aid they give out. But like they say: kill ten people on a bus and it's murder. Kill thirty thousand people in an invasion and it's politics.

86.129.179.56 16:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This world is a cruel cruel place.87.109.20.129 00:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That is very true. Something like 2 or 3 million (mostly civilians) were massacred in the Vietna War. I'm not sure how many were killed by the Americans and how many by fellow Vietnamese though, but probably a lot by US air strikes and carpet bombing. Kingal86 11:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We need more Viet Cong and fewer Likudniks editing Wikipedia.

This is nonsense. The US in Vietnam and Iraq, just like Israel never intentionally targets civilians. Unlike dear Hamas, which seems to target exclusively civilians.

-Sangil 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? When the two bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these two cities are not civilian targets?

You can't be serious. Are you really comparing an act meant to end the most bloody war in history, and save hundreds of thousands of both American and Japanese lives, with the Hamas suicide bombings? You can hardly say the purpose of the Americans in the war was to kill Japanese civilians. As you surely know, Hamas can't make the same claim.

-Sangil 00:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima only killed 66,000 Japanese. If Truman hadn't dropped the bomb the kamikazes would have continued forever. Also, if the Iraq War had started with a nuclear bomb, then it would likely have ended in 2004 and now a government would have been firmly ensconced without the 2,300 American deaths and 17,000 injuries.Patchouli 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamas Wants Jihad Versus NonMuslims

I deleted the nonsense about Hamas wanting Islam to get rid of Israel versus a "jihad against non-Muslims". This is patent nonsense. I replaced it with "what Hamas considers to be Zionist Jewish settler-colonists". Clearly, Hamas' jihad is not against Palestinian Samaritans, Jews (yes, there are a few) or Christians. Hence, the phrase warranted deletion. Robert Lindsay 09:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (talk)

70.49.43.206 05:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC) New at this: Hamas never wants Jihad against non-Muslims. What it wants is for "Palestinians" i.e: ethnic Arabs <which include quite a few Judaic, Islamic, and Christianic tribes> to have full rights to live in the lands of their ancestors. These are rights that have been denied to them for over 80 years now. Also, the whole legal suits against Hamas is totally not NPOV, nor kosher. I think they should be deleted completely from the webpage. As well, could you please put in, from somewhere, information on why the Occidental Neo-Imperialists want to impose death, hunger, famine, pestilence on an already extremely poor, suppressed "Palestinian" population living captive in a land that Israel claims is theirs? I would like to know about the motivations of the EU, USA and Israel in doing so, and I think that for the article to be NPOV information must be provided on the motivation of all parties, not just the Hamas. The Hamas's motivations are easy to figure out as they are pragmatic and flexible, but the motives of these Occidental Neo-Imperialists consistently become harder and harder to figure out. I would like to be able to understand the issue, without having this pro-Occidental-Neo-Imperialist bias that keeps showing up in many Wikipedia articles clouding the issue.

A Change in Hamas Policy?

This entry describes Hamas struggle as that between Islam and Judaism. However, in an opinion piece published by the Guardian Newspapers Ltd. Khaled Meshaal says, "Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people." ([43]) Perhaps, this statement needs to included under the sub-headline 'Beliefs' for a more balanced description of the group. --219.95.234.160 13:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar on Wednesday denied referring to a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict, wording that might have hinted Hamas was recognizing Israel’s right to exist.

A senior Palestinian diplomat at the United Nations said on Tuesday that Zahar, a senior leader of the Islamic militant group, had made the reference in a letter he sent to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan this week.

But a Hamas official in Gaza told Reuters the wrong letter had been sent. The official said Zahar made changes to an initial draft of the letter, such as deleting references to the two-state solution. The older version was mistakenly sent.

Zeq 06:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

links

I really dont have the time or patience to read this entire page, but it does not seem NPOV to me to have articles whos sole purpose is to be critical of the organization disscussed in this article. It would be better if critical views were linked to by putting a "see also" section for organizations that are critical of Hamas, then having links to their views on hamas from their article, or just letting people find them for themselves. Notice that there are no links to critical articles from the wikipedia article for Democratic Party (United States), but there is an "other" that lists Republican Party (United States) from which a website critical of the democratic party might be found. Ive already done alot to streamline the Links, but more could be done.

also, is it possible to delete some of the useless disscussion on this talk page?

k im going to try ang do this again without getting threatened --67.161.93.159 03:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

what exactly are you going to do? --tasc 11:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

wtf!

I've spent two hours yesterday cleaning references! and now some one 'restrored deleted materials'! is out there any respect to someonelse's work? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There could be chance although Hamas won election.

One one side people of this country did vote wrong but we do not know anything about their hints and nothing is mentioned in the article. Mostly there are more reasons, but to mention only that one is fitting in one's opinion is not objective enough for wikipedia. Politics is like a big chess and the Palstines voters voted with different purposes. Neglected is that a not neglectable number of voters voted for Hamas that they included in start of government. If they were included in government and attack the government they would kill themselves - no civil war now. But it is a risk that they will change democracy to dictatorship till next election. During that time they hope that enough leaders of Hamas will change their opinion (some have, but they are still minority). Govern needs time and soon they should not have time for continuing the crap of the past. They now in the center of power, center of public press and can not hide any more. And next election they will do a strong selection by votes. They are sure that the Allied Forces will garant next election, so they can risk this. All politicians outside of Palstine should accept that this is a chance and should not so upset. The better reaction were to say after the result that the world was surprised and did not like the result of the election. We understood voters purposes, but we were sure that was a to big risk. Are we smart enough to support population of this little state through their difficult way? They gave us the ball - it is your turn now - for the most difficult steps of game. 68.37.133.158 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Dieter

Where is the Beliefs section?

Was its removal discussed here at talk? It should be restored. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)