Talk:Hamas/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 28

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

There is no Hamas in the westbank None That is deliberate inflammatory propaganda lies, designed to justify ethnic cleansing in the westbank

Remove that line asap

Innocent people are being blown to smithereens. Stop being part of their war machine 109.255.101.21 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FYI, emotionally-loaded pleas like this make people less likely to look at your request seriously. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-npov description

"optimists like the BBC" seems non-NPOV. Kohl Gill (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Was Hamas originally tacitly supported by Israeli intelligence?

So, on page 121 of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim Mahmood Mamdani wrote, "until events proved the foolhardiness of the project, Israel hoped to encourage an Islamist political movement in the Occupied Territories and play it off against the secular nationalism of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli intelligence allowed Hamas to operate unhindered during the first intifada - letting it open a university and bank accounts and even possibly helping it with funding - only to confront Hamas in the second intifada." It is sometimes alleged that Israeli intelligence propped up Hamas to more or less avoid having to follow through with the peace process. I don't know that I would go so far, but I am curious if there isn't more information about this. I know that Mamdani also alleges for Abdullah Yusuf Azzam to have been supported by the Central Intelligence Agency back in those days. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

Hamas are clearly not terrorists!it's a resistance move who grew up oppressed. 197.25.188.215 (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done You have not proposed a specific edit in a "change X to Y" format. This article only states which nations consider Hamas to be a terror group, it does not make that claim in Wikipedia's voice. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas, Khaled Mashaal

Below convo in[]'s, transferred from my talk page.

[Sorry, you just (19:32) reverted my edit. The presumed quote of Mashaal is not on page 231 in that book of Beinart if you follow the internet link provided. So, I don't understand why you say that it is. What date is Mashaal supposed to have said that quote? (I'm possibly not able to quickly continue this discussion here with you, 'my batteries [energy] are getting low' for today.) --Corriebertus (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Corriebertus: I am sitting right here looking at it after following the link, idk why it doesn't work for you. Selfstudier (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If I look up that page 231, I see "NOTES", notably notes referring to pages 84 until 86 in the book, in total 16 notes. Is that also what you see? If 'yes': which of those 16 notes is the one you mean, concerning which page in the book? If 'no': what do you see on that page 231? Anyway: I asked you also (yesterday), on what date Mashaal has given that quote, that you say you can see (and I can't see). A reliable quote of a notable person (like in this case Mashaal) in matters like politics where conditions, opinions, positions et cetera constantly can change should always be dated; therefore, if this quote isn't dated, I don't think it can serve here as reliable quote; it would look more like a rumor, which I think we cannot accept as 'reliable source', here. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)]

Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I edited the article to show the date of the quote and fixed the page number (even though it shows PT 231 in the url, it actually goes to p 219. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

That should be its primary descriptor as such is with Al-Qaeda and ISIS 23.93.17.238 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. You are absolutely right but English Wikipedia is widely known to have a liberal bias. And, unlike other sources, Wikipedia does not officially acknowledge it.

What's happening right now is that Wikipedia's administrators take over pet articles, like this one, and protect by claiming everything needs to come from a "reliable source", as defined by themselves! They get to be the gatekeepers of it all and through a very convoluted process where you must register, become a known editor and already conform to their methods, you can then "vote" once every few years on what is and is not a "reliable source".

For the purposes of this article, they will skim over the largest countries in the world designating Hamas as a pure terrorist organization, since China doesn't consider it. And give it unequal weight since Reuters or AP, already biased sources, try to state Hamas is a "militant group" instead of purely a terrorist one. On this end, Wikipedia Administrators that have been editing and protecting this article for years, will unilaterally ignore the WSJ, NY Times, Globe and Mail, and BBC and go with AP's preferred term to "protect the integrity" of this article.

That is why, they will only allow the adjective "Terrorist" to be referred to in this article as a specific country's designation for Hamas is. Notwithstanding Hamas' allies are also other terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah.

All of this, dear IP editor, is to let you know that Wikipedia has not been and is not interested in being a neutral purveyor of news. Articles like this only show a very biased and globally liberal viewpoint.

2601:18B:8180:D810:91B:681B:EE69:D4AD (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand it's easy to get emotional given the events, but it is important that Wikipedia stays objective. The term "terrorism" is controversial. Many would argue the IDF's actions are also terrorism, for instance. The plain reality is that some countries think Hamas is terrorist; others do not. So we need to stay balanced. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think terrorism is purposely targeting civilians, whereas targeting militants with accidental civilian casualties wouldn't be terrorism. If Hamas is raiding shelters specifically meant for civilians and gunning down children with assault rifles, that is a terrorist act. 23.93.17.238 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF’s actions are in response to an initial attack. Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians for political purposes, like Hamas slaughtering concert goers. The plain fact is Hamas is a terrorist organization whereas the IDF is a nation’s army. Also the fact that the US lists Hamas as a terrorist organization is proof enough, unless you’re basing this off the opinions of Russian, China, North Korea and Iran. 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What I know about leftism is that it revolves around workers' rights and social welfare. I do not understand why or how a leftist website would sympathize with a fundamentalist and violent movement similar to right-wing western parties. Is this truly leftist or is Wikipedia under the influence of terror sympathizers? 23.93.17.238 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TERRORIST. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The pro-Hamas editor does everything possible to make Hamas look good, lol. Shocker. LVMH11 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s because leftists see everything as the oppressors vs the oppressed. In this case, Israel is the oppressor, or “occupier,” and Hamas is acting on behalf of poor, oppressed Palestine. 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Watch this reply get deleted. This perfectly sums up the problem with Wikipedia. Wonder why they have beg for donations every few weeks? The US has Hamas listed as a terrorist organization that should be enough. The AP, which gave us such racist gems as capitalizing the “b” in “black” but not the “w” in “white,” is a very biased source. However, the editors here don’t accept allsides.com as reliable, of course, because they don’t like that it shows how the majority of their “reliable sources” are left wing.

Source: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/ 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why on Earth would the use of the term by the US, a close ally of one of the countries involved in the conflict, be sufficient as reason it should be used here? You seem to be very confused about Wikipedia's neutrality stance as well as what constitutes a reliable source. 136.54.91.222 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is American and the US government is a reliable source. You need the New York Times to say it too? 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:3C1D:E840:4A26:D700 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Curry7524 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Dubious sourcing for allied to Al Qaeda claim

The sources for claiming Al Qaeda is an ally of Hamas, never say anything about Al Qaeda being allied to Hamas. It should be removed unless someone can provide actual sourcing IdkIdc12345 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Only allegedly, the sources never explicitly state that Al Qaeda and Hamas are allies, just that Al Qaeda allegedly voices support for Hamas TheLibyanGuy (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The word terrorist

The word terrorists is not controversial. It's well defined in the very accredited Webs Dictionary. 2603:6081:2F09:7273:B1CB:3E72:FE4E:FF26 (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:TERRORIST. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Despite what the dictionary might state, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. There are many nations that specfically do not consider Hamas to be a terror group, and others that do. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If you attack the state protecting you, or the society because you want to impose your political visionz screw you, you lose its protection. Breivik - does anyone disagree he is terrorist? There are many good arguments that Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood are not mere political parties. But we have here terrorism in a situation of occupied people. Hamas is a designated terorist organization by the most imporrant countries in the West. We have noted this in many prominent locations. It is not sufficient?

ing Ben Azura (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Note

Website out of use, remove 2 external links 93.140.249.63 (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti communism?

They are anti communist, why has this been removed? HoopaRoopa (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a particularly important part of their identity. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not important, but it's still part of it. HoopaRoopa (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Was the statement that was removed properly sourced? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. HoopaRoopa (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

In that case, you can re-add it with its source, keeping due weight in mind. (Note: I do think it's notable for the article). Professor Penguino (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't, edit protected. HoopaRoopa (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Could you paste the part that you think should be added with the source on the talk page, perhaps? Then I could add it to the article on your behalf. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

in the "ideology" section of the infobox, please put

Anti-communism

Thank you.

Yatchee. HoopaRoopa (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, is this still gonna be added to the page.
Thank you
Yatchee HoopaRoopa (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do it in a second. :) Professor Penguino (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't why this was removed, cranks maybe?
Thanks
Yatchee :) HoopaRoopa (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Filiu 2012, pp. 55, 64–67. HoopaRoopa (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Yitzhak segev

You need to add that Israel had provided the initial financial backing of Hamas for the purpose of weakening the PLO. Research the role of Yitzhak Segev. 74.105.109.143 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Turkey is neutral

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Turkey doesn't support Hamas. They said they were impartial. Don't enter incorrect information. Remove Turkey from the list. 31.155.65.147 (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please offer independent reliable sources to support your claim. I think that will be hard, as Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel and explicitly does not designate Hamas a terrorist group.. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The infobox contains the word "partly". 331dot (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Turkish President Erdogan said that he was neutral and that the war should end. 176.217.170.94 (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his support for Gaza. You should add Russia to the list.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/11/08/russia-turns-against-israel-by-taking-sides-in-the-war-with-hamas.html 176.217.170.94 (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Turkey just says the war must end and doesn't take sides. Take Turkey off the list. 176.217.170.94 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I wish my suggestions would be taken into consideration. Why is Russia not added to the list ? 46.104.2.97 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Turkey explicity declines to name Hamas a terrorist group[1] which is certainly a pro-Hamas position. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It is wrong to involve the whole country just because the president said so later. Turkish people want the war to end. It doesn't hold anyone. 176.217.63.244 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Pls add Russia to the list. 176.217.63.244 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should set off Russia in a separate section of this talk page. This page is watched by volunteers who will not necessarily make immediate replies. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In this context "Turkey" refers to the government, not the Turkish people. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter anyway. Even if I write, no one will correct it. 176.217.63.244 (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be a huge mistake if Russia is not added to the list. 176.217.63.244 (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You harping on it won't make it appear faster. Patience is required. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Erdogan has consistently defended Hamas; he refers to then as "liberators". TheLibyanGuy (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inconsistent whitewash and mischaracterization by constantly repeating "de facto" when not very accurate, and somewhat misleading

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia articles regarding Hamas say:

"Hamas has been the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip since its takeover in June 2007."

Sorry, it was NOT a "coup", as some Muslim and left-wing apologists on MSNBC and CNN are wrongly characterizing it. Not understanding the facts and the history.

It's true that Hamas denied future elections, but they said from the outset what they were all about, and the people of Gaza voted for them anyway, and in recent polls said they support Hamas and what they stand for, especially in regards to Israel and Jews, etc.

Hamas was VOTED IN.

In 2006.

Before the events in 2007.

So it's wrong (or at least somewhat misleading) for Wikipedia to say that Hamas has been the "de facto" governing authority of the Gaza strip "since its takeover in June 2007".

Hamas has been the DE JURE governing authority. The official and duly elected governing authority of Gaza, since 2006 etc.

The 2007 event was AFTER the election, not before. 2603:7000:A900:45DF:F479:7D22:D0FA:97BC (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Our personal opinions mean little; this article summarizes what independent reliable sources say. If you have sources stating that Hamas is the de jure ruling authority, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

They're called elections. That makes them de jure...and official, by definition. And that's not a "personal opinion". Hence why the subject line on this says "inconsistent"...because the same sources that (wrongly or misleadingly) say "de facto" also admit and say that Hamas was elected by the majority in official elections in 2006.

And if there was a source that said something to the effect that it's official and de jure, most likely the cabal of establishment elitists and arrogant fact-deniers and editors would (in circular reasoning) simply claim that "they're not reliable sources"...because they're not left-wing enough or establishment enough. So that's like a silly argument.

Sources, yeah, true, ok, but also what's actually factually meritoriously observably objectively logically empirically true should have a consideration too, on here.

Hamas was voted in, in 2006, before 2007. That MAKES them "de jure" (at least in important ways) the official governing authority of Gaza and the Palestinians. And there's no getting around that fact. Good day. 2603:7000:A900:45DF:4D49:2164:18AC:18E9 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know for certain, but it may have something to do with contested recognition? Do Fatah, for instance, recognise their government? And I suppose what is “de jure” in Palestinian Territories, is what’s recognised by the PA?

Off topic, but regarding your empirical reality comment, see WP:NOOBJECTIVITY Yr Enw (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of sourced material

"campaigning on using armed resistance against the Israeli occupation,"

Why has this been removed from the lede?

Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It might help if you could establish when it was removed/the summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea where specifically but seems last mention of the occupation, the elephant in the article's lede, was removed by @KlayCax:, with no edit summary [2]. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Since it's basically Hamas's main policy, and definitely for its continuous clashes with the PA, which has disavowed the use of armed resistance, it's pretty obviously relevant in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC: Should Hamas be described as accepting the 1967 Israeli borders in the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Edits were made WP:Boldly in a manner that reflected the eventual consensus that Hamas accepts the 1967 borders, and the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution". –Pedantical (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Editors have recently gone back and forth in describing the ideology of Hamas in the lead. This is likely due to the fact that academic sources, popular media, and statements on/from Hamas have widely varied over the decades. Early Hamas statements explicitly called for the destruction of (at least the current conception) Israel. While statements past-2017 have been more ambiguous. While some academic sources take them on their word, others express doubts on whether the 2017 statement actually changed anything.

• Option #1: Hamas is predominately described as supporting the end of Israel within the article. Statements post-2017 are treated with significant skepticism.
• Option #2: Both the 1988 and 2017 statements are left outside of the lead; lead doesn't state either. The article gives relatively equal weight to those who believe there has been a changed in the goals of Hamas and those who do not.
• Option #3: Hamas is predominately described as accepting the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders, post 2017. Early viewpoints are significantly trimmed from the article.
• Option #4: Another option not listed.

I'm personally in favor of #2. What do people here believe is the best solution in resolving this?

#2. (Note: Creator of RFC) Since there hasn't been a clear consensus in the academic literature, news media sources, among other things, we shouldn't definitely state one or the other. KlayCax (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, an RFC question should be simple and neutral. I suggest you change it to something simple like "Should the lead include Hamas' acceptance of the 1967 borders?"VR _talk 05:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There's multiple wways that we can phrase it within the article. The RFC is about whether it should be stated in Wikivoice.

In my opinion, saying that they "accepted the 1967 borders" is disputable and thus shouldn't be in the lead, as multiple reliable sources have directly contradicted the interpretation that they did. KlayCax (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are a lot of WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP who believe that Hamas' 2017 constituted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, I put these sources in the section below for analysis. If there are dissenting voices they should be examined and we should give WP:BALANCE accordingly.VR _talk 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Vice regent It would be very helpful if you yourself could compile a similar number of scholarly and other RS on the opposing side of this discussion.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Bruce Hoffman isn't a random OP-ed writer. He's a well-known expert in the field.

  Even many of the sources listed by vice regent give significant doubt to their claims, @RadioactiveBoulevardier:.

  Others have also expressed doubt about what the wording of the 2017 statement actually meant. (e.g. You could interpret it to mean.)

  It's generally interpreted as saying that:

  • Palestine includes Gaza and the West Bank
  • It is left unspecified rather the rest is Israeli or Palestinian

  Many have argued that this is just a form of word games. A fact that even many of the sources below state. NBC says "appeared", Rand Corporation says "at least in principle", and Wall Street Journal seems entirely doubtful, saying that it was "an attempt to moderate its image" while "still [refusing] to recognize Israel". The academic sources itself are almost always prefaced with a notion of skepticism to whether their position has changed. Just that you could interpret the statement that way.

  Michael Milshtein also expresses skepticism of whether there has actually been any moderation in their position:

  Although, Ben, you need to remember this offensive was planned a year ago. All talks about negotiations between us and the Saudis began only two, three months ago. It’s absolutely clear that the basic reasons for this brutal attack was not the Al-Aqsa Mosque, or the war in the West Bank, or the economic situation in Gaza, or the Saudi-Israeli negotiations. It was much deeper. It was a part of the long-term vision of Hamas to eradicate Israel...Absolutely. In order to understand Hamas, you have to know Arabic, and you have to read things in Arabic and listen to Hamas preachers and Hamas leaders when they speak to their own people. It’s absolutely different from the things that are translated to us in Hebrew or English. For two years, I read all those books, and articles, and interviews, and it was absolutely clear for me that Hamas is not ready at all to give up on the jihad for permits, for workers, or for any other economic gesture from Israel.

  Simply prefacing it uncritically in the lead without any context is a giant issue of WP: Weight. Especially considering how the ambiguous statement is.

  The action that most fits WP: NPOV is #2. Explaining how each side interprets the 2017 statement while not promoting one opinion in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Option 2 goes against policy for two reasons. The more sources we quote here, whether for or against, the more clear it becomes this is a major that RS cover. Which means that we must give it prominence in lead, whatever the wording might be.

  Second thus far, the overwhelming majority of sources presented in this RFC seem to favor that Hamas did accept the 1967 borders in 2017. The idea that it didn't seems to be the minority view based (unless more sources to the contrary are provided). VR _talk 17:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also Michael Milshtein is a former member of the Israeli military, which is not an wp:independent source on Hamas given their state of war (just Hamas is not a reliable source on Israel). VR _talk 20:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just wish to point that Al Jazeera, used widely in this article, is also not a NPOV. They are a media outlet of the Qatari government, a financial backer and heavy supporter of Hamas. Bar Harel (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  For the purposes of this RfC you can see that I have used 9 other news sources that are not Al-Jazeera and also used 6 academic sources. VR _talk 01:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Furthermore, there are sources that point out Hamas tacitly accepted the 1967 borders before 2017. For example, in 2009 a Hamas leader told the UN he accepts the 1967 borders[3]. Similarly, Leila Seurat, a researcher at School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences who wrote a whole book on Hamas' foreign policy points out that Hamas tacitly accepted this position when it signed various agreements with Fatah from 2005 to 2012 (including Palestinian Cairo Declaration, Palestinian Prisoners' Document and Fatah–Hamas Mecca Agreement). I have not seen any sources cast skepticism on this position.VR _talk 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Option #3: The source analyses below make plain that the position of Hamas has shifted/gained nuance in the last decade. The article should reflect the organisation's current positions, while of course noting its past positions. However, Wikipedia pages should be up-to-date and not simply mausoleums of undue history. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's true. But the present wording strongly implies that there has a definite, irrefutable change within the organization's foreign policy and agenda. That's heavily disputed among reliable source.

Many have argued that their true position hasn't changed at all. Even the ones being used to "support" the notion express significant skepticism of their position. KlayCax (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Many sources below have mentioned their changed position. But is it accepting the state of Israel as-is, implicitly or explicitly, or accepting only the 1967 boundary without mentioning Israel? Senorangel (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Senorangel: just to clarify no one tried to insert in the article that "Hamas recognizes Israel", that's not what this RFC is about.

But to answer your question, Hamas definitely doesn't explicitly recognize Israel. They explicitly only recognized the 1967 borders. However, in the section below you can see some scholars who believe that this implied recognition. For example, Brenner says "While not explicitly saying what would be on the other side of [1967] borders, this nevertheless acknowledged the existence of another entity there." Likewise Zartman says "Hamas updated its charter in early 2017, accepting the idea of a negotiated two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, implicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist." VR _talk 20:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 4 Past and recent positions should both be described in the lead. Senorangel (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Option #3: The number and quality of sources accepting the 1967 borders in 2017 far outweighs the number and quality of sources expressing skepticism. Cjhard (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 3, considering the WP Policy WP:AGE MATTERS and the number of reliable sources provided. As a reminder, WP:AGE MATTERS states, "In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." Penguino35 (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 2. There are multiple post-2017 sources which state that the ultimate goal of Hamas is establishing a Palestinian state in the whole territory of the former Mandatory Palestine (see Source analysis 3). Also, even the scholars that think that Hamas recognises the 1967 borders (see Source analysis 1) make it clear that Hamas does not recognise Israel. Therefore the wording proposed in the RfC "accepting the 1967 *Israeli* borders" is not supported by them and cannot be used. Alaexis_¿question? 09:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, if they don't accept the existence of Israel, then they don't accept the 1967 borders. It's misleading to claim otherwise. KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, 7 out of the 11 scholars in "Source analysis 1" (Zartman, Brenner, Seurat, Baconi, Lansford, Ismael and Ezbidi) say that Hamas' acceptance of the 1967 borders implies an implicit recognition of Israel, but I never proposed putting that in the lead. I'm ok with writing "1967 borders" as opposed to "the 1967 *Israeli* borders". VR _talk 04:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option #3 (Summoned by bot) per WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 09:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3: There are a wide variety of reliable sources, both scholarly and journalistic, provided in the source analysis sections which back this option. The group has explicitly recognized the 1967 borders. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3; oppose 2 in strongest possible terms. We should state that they currently accept the 1967 borders in the article voice, unattributed (or, more properly, attributed directly to Hamas, not with the "scholars" WP:WEASEL wording used currently.) Nothing in the text should suggest that there is any doubt that Hamas has stated that, since nobody has presented any sources that would support this. Contrary to the current wording and the RFC statement, based on the sources presented here, even skeptics do not largely dispute that that is their currently stated position. What people have presented instead is sources that generally distrust that position or do not give it much credence; we can certainly include that position in the lead, but it doesn't seem to be the majority view, and in any case there's sufficient coverage to include their currently stated policy in the lead as fact. Also, the note from the RFC creator about option 2 clearly violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL (as does the description of Hamas' statements as "ambiguous"); that's the sort of thing the RFC exists to determine. It's also wrong - per the below, there isn't actually much disagreement among the sources as to the fact that Hamas currently says that it accepts the 1967 borders. There are some observers who distrust that statement, or who give it little weight, or who believe that that policy is a temporary recognition of the current situation and that they'll therefore move the goalposts down the line; but that's a separate question and we can note and attribute the existence of people who express that belief while still being clear about what Hamas has at least stated. Oppose 2 in strongest possible terms; complete omission from the lead would be absurd. While I prefer option 3, even option 1 would be preferable - we cannot simply have the lead act as though Hamas has said nothing about this when coverage is so sustained, overwhelming, and clear; the question is instead how we want to weigh the amount of focus on Hamas' currently stated position vs. the voices of skeptics who distrust that position. People who give heavy weight to that skepticism should be pushing for 1 instead (or for a hypothetical version that balances the two evenly.) But option 2 would be an embarrassment that would leave out a key point about the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option #2:, otherwise Option #1. Hamas has allegedly killed the entire opposition in the government, because they were too "open" to the possibility of making peace and legitimizing the existence of Israel. Moreover, "trimming" the early viewpoint is extremely problematic as it right now calls for the destruction of Israel, coinciding with its early viewpoints. Bar Harel (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  How can one link the so-called killings with the fact brought up by the sources. Does it change the source analysis showing Hamas did accept the 1967 borders? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option #1 is supported by sources and Hamas' recent attack on Israel. Hamas describes all Israelis as "settlers", and its charter changes of 2017 do not make a difference in its ideology in practice. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option #3 it seems clear that the 2017 was intended as a change in philosophy and to show willing as regards a two state solution. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Source analysis 1

Here are 6 scholarly sources that say Hamas accepted the 1967 borders in 2017. WP:SCHOLARSHIP indicates that scholarly sources are preferred:

• 1. The book The Foreign Policy of Hamas was written by Leila Seurat, a researcher at the prestigious School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences. In it she writes,

Khaled Mesh’al describes the Document of General Principles and Policies published on 1 May 2017 as a new political benchmark for Hamas. Although the recognition of 1967 borders goes back to the Cairo Agreement and the Prisoners Document, respectively, signed in 2005 and 2006 and is an integral part of all intra-Palestinian agreements signed since then (2007, 2011, 2012, 2014), this document introduces for the first time the recognition as an integral part of the Islamic resistance’s programme, and not simply as a programme shared by the set of Palestinian political players. page 61-62

Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas and Fatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners’ Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012. Yet these compromises linked to the strict framework of reconciliation agreements between Palestinians had never been displayed as an integral part of Hamas strategy. From 2017 on, Hamas would endorse them as its own political stands and not as simple concessions to Fatah. page 18-19

• 2. Maria Koinova. Diaspora Entrepreneurs and Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 150.. Author is Professor of International Relations, University of Warwick.

The 2017 Hamas charter accepted a Palestinian state with 1967 borders, but still without recognizing Israel.

• 3. Mohammed Ayoob. The Many Faces of Political Islam, Second Edition. University of Michigan Press. p. 133.

In its May 2017 charter, Hamas expressed willingness to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders of Israel and Palestine. The statement, however, done not include recognition of Israel or acceptance of the solution proposed by the Oslo Accords. Nevertheless, acceptance of the 1967 borders can be interpreted as a de facto acceptable of the preconditions for a two-state solution.

• 4. Bjorn Brenner. Gaza Under Hamas. I. B. Tauris. p. 206. Author was a lecturer at Swedish Defence University.

The new document still referred to Palestine as territory 'from the river to the sea'. However, it also added that it accepted the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return for refugees. While not explicitly saying what would be on the other side of these borders, this nevertheless acknowledged the existence of another entity there.

• 5. Asaf Siniver (ed.). Routledge Companion to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

The year 2017 saw another significant development inside Hamas...the accept of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, which Hamas hoped would improve its relations with the West.

• 6. Jonathan Zartman. "Conflict in the Modern Middle East:An Encyclopedia of Civil War, Revolutions, and Regime Change". ABC-CLIO. p. 230. Zartman is associate professor at Air Command and Staff College.

Hamas updated its charter in early 2017, accepting the idea of a negotiated two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, implicitly recognizing Israel's right to exist.

VR _talk 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the 6 sources above, here are 5 more sources:

• 7. Tareq Baconi. Hamas contained: The rise and pacification of Palestinian resistance. Stanford University Press. p. 230,245.:

[The Hamas 2017 charter] demonstrated that on the most official level, Hamas accepted the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, UN Resolution 194 for the right of return, and the notion of restricting armed struggle to operate within the limits of international law. Although not breaking any new ground in terms of political concessions, the document was a powerful intervention that restated more forcefully than before the position Hamas has adopted since at least 2007, if not since the 1990s. page 245

Hamas said “Why should we be forced to explicitly recognize Israel if we’ve already indicated we have a de facto acceptance of its presence?” Hamas’s implicit acceptance of Israel has gone far beyond what many Israeli political parties, including the dominant ruling Likud party, have offered Palestinians within their charters. page 230

• 8. Tom Lansford (2019). Political Handbook of the World 2018-2019. SAGE Publications. p. 1815.

In May 2017 Hamas announced a major policy reversal and declared that it was willing to accept the creation of an independent, though interim, Palestinian state, alongside Israel, if that state existed along the pre-1967 borders. Hamas had previously been unwilling to compromise on territorial issues. The organization emphasized that its statement did not imply a recognition of Israel.

• 9. Jacqueline S. Ismael, Tareq Y. Ismael, Glenn Perry. Government and Politics of the Contemporary Middle East Continuity and Change. Taylor & Francis. p. 106?.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Hamas on multiple occasions has accepted, in principle, the existence of Israel, as delineated by its 1967 borders and dropped the call for destruction of Israel from its manifesto. When asked whether Hamas would abandon the destruction of Israel as part of its platform, Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader and a 'hard-liner', answered 'If Israel is ready to tell the people what is the official border, after that we are going to answer this question'. Khaled Meshal, Hamas' political bureau chief then based in Damascus admitted in 2008 that Hamas' leadership are 'realists' who recognize the existence of an 'entity named Israel'. Pushed further, Meshal continued that Hamas accepts 'the national accord for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders'. More specifically, another Hamas leader, Ghazi Hamad went even further in January 2009 (in spite of the sustained Israeli attack Gaza had just suffered), admitting that Hamas would be satisfied with the minimalist goals of reclaiming the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem (i.e. territories lost in 1967), implicitly accepting Israel's pre-1967 borders.

• 10. [4]
• 11. Basem Ezbidi. "Not Rebel Governance? Hamas's Rule". Rebel Governance in the Middle East. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 308.

The 2017 update of its charter that obliterates the movement's relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, indicates Hamas's acceptance of the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders — with the implication of recognising Israel—and the willingness to negotiate and accept a renewable hudna (armistice) with Israel.

VR _talk 04:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Source analysis 2

Here are 10 news sources that indicate Hamas accepted the 1967 borders.

• NBC News[5]: "For decades, Hamas called for the destruction of Israel. In 2017, 30 years after its founding, the group issued a new charter that appeared to stop short of that goal. The document, known as the Hamas 2017 charter, was the first time the group had shown a willingness to accept a Palestinian state that would fall within the borders that existed in 1967, consisting of the West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem."
• Al-Jazeera[6]: "Hamas has presented a new political document that accepts the formation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, without recognising the statehood of Israel".
• The Independent[7]: "However, since 2017, Hamas has said it accepts a Palestinian state shaped around the borders of 1967, which existed prior to the war in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip..."
• The Guardian [8]: "n the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”. By implication, the document accepts that there will be another state entity outside these borders, even if it does not mention Israel."
• Reuters[9] "Palestinian Islamist group Hamas supports the establishment of a transitional Palestinian state along the borders from 1967, its leader Khaled Meshaal said on Monday."
• RAND corporation[10]: "The major takeaway is that Hamas is open, at least in principle, to accepting the 1967 borders of a Palestinian state..."
• Wall Street Journal[11]: "Hamas is dedicated to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It has signaled it is willing to accept a two-state solution based on borders that existed before 1967, but in recent years friction with Israel has steadily grown."
• PBS[12]: In what observers called an attempt to moderate its image, Hamas presented a new document [PDF] in 2017 that accepted an interim Palestinian state along the “Green Line” border established before the Six-Day War but that still refused to recognize Israel.
• India Today[13]: "The organization's 1988 charter called for the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine, covering the entirety of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. However, a 2017 policy document suggests a more nuanced stance, acknowledging the possibility of an interim Palestinian state based on 1967 borders."
• Deutsche Welle[14]:"In a new charter announced earlier this year, Hamas dropped its wording of "destroying" Israel and said it would recognize a Palestinian state within the borders created by the 1967 Arab-Israeli war."

VR _talk 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Source analysis 3 - sources that dispute the acceptance

• The Historical Antecedents of Hamas, 2020

“ Hamas differentiates a historic solution from an interim solution. ... The short-or medium-term solution is called the interim solution. This includes a commitment on the part of Palestinians to willingly accept a Palestinian or Arab or Islamic sovereignty over only part of the historic territory of Palestine alongside a sovereign Israeli state... The eventual goal is an Islamic state in which Jews could live as citizens, not a sovereign Jewish entity ”

• From jihad to resistance: the evolution of Hamas’s discourse in the framework of mobilization, 2021

“ The short-term objective aims to establish a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, while the long-term objective still strives to liberate Mandate Palestine in its entirety. ”

• A battle for hearts and minds: the use of da’wa by hybrid terrorist organisations. The case studies of Hezbollah and Hamas

“ The hybrid terrorist group proved its adaptability by distinguishing between the short-term goal of establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and the long-term one of supplanting Israel. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 09:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Every single one of the above sources says that Hamas recognizes the 1967 borders in anything less than the "long-term" or "ultimate goal". But do the sources give any indication on what Hamas considers the "long-term"? For example, their 1988 charter seems to reference "Day of Judgement". This is analogous to how Orthodox Jews believe that, at some point in the distant future, the Third Temple should be built at the location of the Al-Aqsa mosque.VR _talk 23:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should second-guess them. If they say that this is the long-term goal then this is what we should write in the article. If some day they clarify their position we will add it too. Alaexis_¿question? 10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on my research, the length of period for which Hamas would accept the 1967 borders is often described as "indefinite". Halim Rane, professor at Griffith University, says many Hamas officials accepted the Geneva Initiative (based on the 1967 borders), but wanted to express the wording as "indefinite ceasefire" as opposed to a formal peace agreement, and compared it to Ariel Sharon's "long-term interim agreement". Likewise, a paper in Negotiation Journal points that Hamas "offered a ten-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six Day War and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza" but later extended it to "thirty, forty, or one hundred years, although it would never signal recognition of Israel...[Hamas claims that] an indefinite hudna in no way contradicts Hamas’s refusal to recognize Israel." Likewise other papers also argue that Hamas would agree to peace, in exchange for Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders, for now and leave future peace "up to the next generation" of Palestinians to decide. Another source says Hamas accepts the 1967 borders "for the forseeable future".VR _talk 03:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

These articles are from 2008-2009, so they cannot tell us anything about the changes associated with the 2017 charter. You cannot simultaneously believe that Hamas have always been ready to accept the 1967 borders and that they changed their position in 2017 and are ready to accept these borders since then.

Also, this interpretation did not and does not represent the consensus. Atram says a few sentences after the passage that you quoted that many Israelis believe that Hamas’s refusal of recognition and permanent peace indicate that any hudna will just be a smoke screen to allow military preparation for an eventual attack on Israel.

Dag Tuastad wrote explicitly in 2010 that there are two interpretations

“ Hudna is the offer of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, of an extended ceasefire with Israel. There are two interpretations of this offer. The first is that the hudna is a tactic in order to have all of Palestine conquered. The second is that it is an Islamic method for conflict resolution which can lead to a permanent peace. In other words, the hudna is either a tactical ploy, or a serious offer for an Islamic peace process ”

Alaexis_¿question? 14:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis: How is it deduced from the sources that the Hamas did not accept the 1967 borders? Would you please elaborate on that? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple sources published after 2017 make a distinction between the short-term acceptance of the 1967 borders and the long-term goal of establishing an Islamic state between the river and the sea. Only mentioning the former and not the latter is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 20:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

But as pointed above, the terms "short-term" and "long-term" are incredibly vague, and without definition they shouldn't be included. One of the sources above points out that Hamas itself has proposed a "thirty, forty, or one hundred years" ceasefire to Israel based on the 1967 borders. 30-100 years is hardly "short-term"!VR _talk 04:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I am understanding from Alaexis's comment that he accepts the Hamas acceptance of 1967 borders but still think their previous thoughts should be mentioned. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Being WP:BOLD, I've made changes to the lede, I believe that now it covers all the key points (the initial maximalist position, acceptance of the 1967 borders but not of Israel in the compromises of the 2000's and the 2017 charter, the long-term goal). Alaexis_¿question? 13:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think what you added is one-sided, as sources point out this debate is two-sided as to whether Hamas intends upon long-term peace, or a short-term tactic. We've already discussed sources above who point out this two sided debate, but here's another source:

There are two competing interpretations over the purpose of Hamas’s Hudna. While some consider Hamas’s offer as a tactic to get time for a future military attack and conquer all the land of Palestine, others see it as an Islamic way of conflict resolution to achieve permanent/long-term peace in the future (Tuastad 2010b: 5)...On the one side...the Islamist movement will never give up the dream of establishing a Palestinians state and wiping out Israel...On the other ...the demand for Hudna seems to be a genuine demand for peace... "In Arab and Islamic tradition, a Hudna constitute a phase: first the ceasefire, Hudna, then the sulh, reconciliation. The most common outcome of the Hudna phase is a final peace agreement”.

The second view is also supported by the following sources. Baconi, who wrote one of the more comprehensive books on Hamas, writes:

[Khaled Meshal] stressed that the constant offering of ceasefires on land occupied in 1967 was another indication that Hamas implicitly recognized Israel. Meshal’s views were mirrored by others; Hamas’s finance minister in Gaza stated that “a long-term ceasefire as understood by Hamas and a two-state settlement are the same. It’s just a question of vocabulary.”

Tristan Dunning writes:

[Hamas minister says] "A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a ceasefire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a permanent, non-violent resolution to their differences." Hamas has also repeatedly and publicly committed itself to accepting a popular referendum on any peace agreement reached by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Instances of this may be found in... Hamas’ acceptance of the Arab League initiative, entailing full normalisation with Israel in return for a withdrawal from Arab territories captured in 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Loren Lybarger writes:

Hamas too would signal a willingness to accept a long-term "hudna" (cessation of hostilities, truce) along the armistice lines of 1948 (an effective acceptance of the two-state formula).

Krista Weigand writes:

Hamas's offers of long term cease-fires and acceptance of a two-state solution with pre-I967 borders...Hamas leaders continue to suggest that they are willing to compromise on their claim for all of historic Palestine, yet their claims are mostly ignored...Though Hamas has not stated it explicitly, the conditions under which it proposed the truce would in fact provide recognition of the existence of the state of Israel with its pre-1967 boundaries. Because of Hamas's unwillingness to explicitly recognize the state of Israel...

Finally Ayoob (2009, page 126) writes:

The Hamas leadership has increasingly begun to emphasize the importance of Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as the precondition for a long-term truce (hudna). Hamas's leaders have also accepted the idea that the future of Palestine ought to be determined either on the basis of a popular referendum or by freely elected representatives of the Palestinian people and that Hamas will abide by such a decision. Such statements have often implied that the long-term truce as conceived by Hamas leaves open the possibilities of mutual recognition by Palestine and Israel and of a settlement based on the borders of 1967, if the Palestinian people accept it of their own volition. Hamas's decision to participate in the 2006 elections to the Palestine National Council after having boycotted the 1996 elections because they were held within the Oslo framework is probably the best indication that it has decided to work within the two-state framework, without explicitly admitting that fact.

VR _talk 20:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I WP:BOLDly made an edit that does two things. First, I wrote "[Hamas 2017 charter] supported a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognizing Israel" because at this point the overwhelming majority of sources say that, and even Alaexis' sources say Hamas accepts the 1967 borders in the interim. Secondly, I added "Hamas's repeated offers of a truce (for a period of 10—100 years) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution", given the sources I provided above.VR _talk 21:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request to lead (1 November 2023)

At the end of the following sentence in the third para of the lead: Under the ideological principles of Islamism, Hamas promotes Palestinian nationalism in an Islamic context; it has pursued a policy of jihad (armed struggle) against Israel (and perhaps also to the Ideology section in the sidebar where it reads Palestinian nationalism) could we perhaps add the following citation from Gelvin, James L. (2014). "The Palestinian National Movement Comes of Age". The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-61354-6.:

Yr Enw (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. There is already a citation present and new source doesn't fully support the armed and violent characterisation of struggle (Jihad). Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I’m just misunderstanding, why would we not value more citations?

re the jihad part, can be avoided if the citation comes at the semicolon, as opposed to end of the sentence? Yr Enw (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk page too long

This talk page is really too long, making saving edits very slow, please archive some discussion with consensus, thanks. -Lemonaka‎ 12:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and archived mostly all of the “answered” requests here, and also archived a handful of stale posts that didn’t seem relevant anymore.

It’s not perfect but hopefully it helps trim it down a bit! Pedantical (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 09:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC #3

Should editors collaborate to maximize the number of active RfCs on this page, in the aim of creating a record number? 21:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

well, the RfC titled "Should Hamas' ideology be described as anti-imperialist in the infobox?" has been present for 2 weeks now. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

JohnnyPedro1998 you added Saudi Arabia as an opponent to Hamas. But I notice that your sources are a couple of years old. A few months ago, the leader of Hamas visited Saudi Arabia.[15] The article also says that Saudis did indeed arrest people for Hamas links, but "in recent months" they were released. So maybe Saudi Arabia is no longer an opponent? VR _talk 21:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

Add Sudan and Tunisia to the allies box (probably allegedly), and in the case of Sudan, who ceased its support for Hamas since 2019, Sudan should probably be listed as "X Year" (the year Sudan was an ally of Hamas)"-2019, present, allegedly" Source TheLibyanGuy (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: “Allegedly” wouldn’t be good enough, but the source says Sudan and Tunisia have openly expressed support for Hamas in recent days. If we can have a direct source for this “openly” I’d be happy to add this. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2023

Change "An example being, Hamas leader, Fathi Hamad's 2019 statement" to "An example being, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Fathi Hamad's 2019 statement"

I believe that those who are unfamiliar with Hamas' leadership or who skim the article will come the conclusion without investigation like myself that Hamad is the leader of all of Hamas which carries significantly different connotations than a member of Hamas' leadership. SpiderAusban (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done I can't find the content I'm asked to change here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Qatar funding of Hamas with support of Netanyahu governments

Former PM Ehud Olmert reports that "Hamas was financed with the assistance of Israel - for years - by hundreds of millions of Dollars that came from Qatar, with the assistance of the state of Israel, with the full knowledge and support of the Israeli government led by Netanyahu. Netanyahu when he took over in 2009, said that his primary responsibility and priority is to destroy Hamas. And throughout the period he was prime minister, he made every possible effort, in order to build Hamas rather than to destroy it. And in a certain way the expansion of Hamas and the strengthening of Hamas is largely also a result of this policy of Netanyahu." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uar3I_LUSyM&t=671s I think this, or at least parts of it, should be shown as a quote in the "Finances and funding" section, as it is crucial information brought by a former PM of Israel. Haxtibel (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly think it deserves some mention somewhere. Funding is fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hence the choice not only not to strike every time Israel has decided to respond militarily to the provocations of the fundamentalist movement (5 wars from 2008 to today with thousands of deaths) but also the choice to let the financing of Qatar (there is talk of a billion dollars) arrived safely in the Strip.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu: Money to Hamas part of strategy to keep Palestinians divided 79.44.120.58 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

source 79.44.120.58 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Charged and subjective language.

Descriptions of Hamas attacks on and around October 7th include biased language that doesn't belong in an academic article and should be edited. 2601:283:1:8C70:CBD5:47EC:25EB:4848 (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

– Pedantical (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

Hello. I’m requesting to edit this page because I want to fix some links by changing them into what it redirects to. For example, I want to change the link from “Mahmoud Zahar” to “Mahmoud al-Zahar”. I hope you can contact me soon. BLUE91233 (Founding father of El Kadsre) (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Feel free to reply with additional requests as you find them. I can look over myself too, but not a guarantee I’ll find them all :)

– Pedantical (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

HAMAS TUNNELS

"Many people ask why we built 500 km of tunnels, and we didn't build shelters where civilians could hide during the bombings," Abu Marzouk said in an interview broadcast on RT. "We built the tunnels because there is no other way to keep ourselves from being targets and being killed. These tunnels are meant to protect us from the planes. We fight them."

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rjkfcurg6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by שמי (2023) (talk • contribs) 12:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the de facto ruling organization in Gaza. He said that the UN and Israel are supposed to build shelters for civilians, not whoever controls the Gaza Strip. שמי (2023) (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat and others שמי (2023) (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pedantical (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Providing quote requested

@Corriebertus: regarding this edit[16]. The 2005 is relevant to the two-state solution, because Seurat (page 17) says:

Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas and Fatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners’ Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012. Yet these compromises linked to the strict framework of reconciliation agreements between Palestinians had never been displayed as an integral part of Hamas strategy. From 2017 on, Hamas would endorse them as its own political stands and not as simple concessions to Fatah.

There used to be an inline reference there but it got removed somehow. VR _talk 03:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"Do not change this to "terrorist" without gaining consensus on the talkpage first"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The content rearrangement was made as originally considered. Pedantical (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

---

I see this comment inside the text, asking to not change the designation of Hammas to be "terrorist", but to keep it as "political and military organization". I would like to understand what's the missing piece by fellow editors to agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization. I see that the infobox already mentions that Hamas is: Designated as a terrorist group by

Australia
Canada
European Union
Israel
Japan
Paraguay
United Kingdom
United States

So why can't Wikipedia editors also agree to call it that? I understand that countries such as Russia, China, and Turkey, don't call it a terrorist organization. And that the UN got a plurality of votes to call it a terror organization (but not a 2/3 majority).

Is the bar the UN? What do the editors find that is missing?

Tal Galili (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, this debate crops up frequently on this, and a whole host of other pages, but MOS:TERRORIST advises extreme caution in using the term and using attribution when doing so. As such, this article seems to follow the MOS guidance because it attributes the label to those who have proscribed Hamas as such. The hidden text is likely there bc any such change would undoubtedly be opposed by other editors and so you cannot make changes to contentious topics that you know would potentially do so, without first gaining consensus. Yr Enw (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't just that some countries do not call them terrorists, some countries like Turkey specifically call them liberators and freedom fighters. To call any indivdual or group a terrorist in Wikipedia's voice, there needs to be very broad agreement amongst reliable sources. You were a little closer in attributing use of the term to the specific countries that do, but I still think that doing so in the lead requires a consensus. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Yr Enw and 331dot.

Thanks for the reference to MOS:TERRORIST.

I can understand that given that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization only by the US, UK, EU, etc. - is not a broad enough consensus to just use the term "terrorists".

In which case, I'd like to ask if there is agreement to move the section at the end of the lead (forth paragraph) to be at the end of the first paragraph. i.e.: that at the end of the first paragraph that says:

"Hamas .... is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist[61] political ... in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control."

we will move into it the section:

"The group's attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been described by academics as acts of terrorism[61] and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization.[93][94][52] A 2018 attempt to condemn Hamas for "acts of terror" at the United Nations failed.[g]"

The paragraph itself seems to be fine in terms of keeping the balance with regards to NPOV. However, I think it should be pushed to be the end of the first paragraph because the "notable" of the organization's definition seems more critical to convey to the casual reader as early as possible in the text. The the current second paragraph starts describing the history of Hamas (i.e.: In 1987,...), which seems less notable than the (debate over the) military tactics of the Hamas organization.

My proposition is based on the description in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which suggest that "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." An example of this can also be seen at the wiki page of an organization such as ISIS, in which the relation it has to terror is already presented in the second sentence:

"The Islamic State (IS)[147]—also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; /ˈaɪsɪl/), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS),[148][149] and by its Arabic acronym Da'ish[150][151]—is a Salafi jihadist transnational Islamist terror group and former unrecognised quasi-state.[152]"

What to others in this thread think about my suggestion? (thanks upfront) Tal Galili (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure I am entirely understanding. Are you suggesting we move the reference to Hamas’s violent tactics higher up in the lede? I am a bit ambivalent about using ISIS as an guide bc I think, for Hamas, there is a need for emphasis on violence being a tactic not an end in and itself, whereas with ISIS violence was very much an end in and of itself. Yr Enw (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

"Are you suggesting we move the reference to Hamas’s violent tactics higher up in the lede?" - yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing.

I think the current article lead for the Hamas article does not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section since, as I mentioned above, the notability of the article is not established in the first paragraph. And I think the notability of the organization is less to do with when it was founded (i.e.: second paragraph), and more to do with its actions (which deemed it, again, by many countries, to be a terrorist organization).

If you think ISIS is not a good example, I've looked for another organization to compare against, I came across Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, in which the first paragraph included the sentence "Some sources, including United States Department of State, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan listed it as a terrorist organization."

To be honest, I also think the example of ISIS is a good one.

You wrote that "with ISIS violence was very much an end in and of itself.", however from the Wiki article Islamic_State#Goals it says: "Since at latest 2004, a significant goal of the group has been the foundation of a Sunni Islamic state. Specifically, ISIL has sought to establish itself as a caliphate, an Islamic state led by a group of religious authorities under a supreme leader – the caliph – who is believed to be the successor to Muhammad. "

While for Hamas, the wiki article states that:

"The founding charter of Hamas mandates the killing of Jews, the destruction of the state of Israel, and advocates for the establishment of an Islamic state in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank."

So it sounds to me like both Hamas and ISIS (based on the Wiki text at present) share the goal of establishing a state, and both seemed to believe that attacking civilians (e.g.: "killing of jews" in the case of Hamas) to be a legitimate way of achieving their goals of gaining a state.

So given that both ISIS, and Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, seem to be articles dealing with organizations that have been designated as a terrorist organization - and both seem to indicate that designation by some countries in the lead section - hence I think the same rule should apply to the current article.

WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a convincing argument. Personally I don’t have an issue with the lede mentioning the proscription higher up (so long as it’s clearly attributed and not used in Wikivoice). I would imagine that the reservations may be about how much weight academic scholarship gives it specifically. Yr Enw (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Yr Enw.

@331dot - WDYT? are you also o.k. with what I propose? If so - how long would you like us to wait for others to weigh in before making the change? Tal Galili (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection at this time. I would suggest waiting a day or two to see what develops here. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good (Y). Tal Galili (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's stop drawing parallels between Hamas and ISIL, particularly at this time when this is essentially Israel's PR playbook - aside from being jarring for that fact alone, the parallels are thin and the comparison weak. Hamas is, for one thing, an organization with considerably more history, dating from 1987, and thus as a subject as a whole requires the careful balancing of its extremely lengthy and encyclopedically worthy history with more recent content, lest we risk WP:RECENTISM. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Iskandar323,

I don't want to get into the is Hamas similar to ISIS discussion, since I don't think this would help us reach a resolution. So for the sake of discussion, let's (friendly) agree to put that discussion aside.

If you have other organization that has carried out "what have been described as terrorist attacks" as part of their agenda of forming a state that you want us to compare us against, please propose it for us to discuss.

Here, I'll propose another one: Irgun. This is a zionist organization, and its wiki page also says in the lead of the article, in the end of the first paragraph, that "The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts.".

So I think what I'm proposing appears to be consistent both with my understanding of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, as well as examples I can find in existing articles.

As for the risk of WP:RECENTISM, I've googled to see from how early there have been acts described as terrorist attacks attributed to it. For example, I found the link here which seems to indicate cases at least from 1994. So I don't see how this designation is something which is only started appearing recently.

With all of that said - would you agree to continue with my proposal? Tal Galili (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have other organization that has carried out "what have been described as terrorist attacks" as part of their agenda of forming a state that you want us to compare us against, please propose it for us to discuss. Lets go with United States of America, British Empire, Israel. JVL is not a reliable source. Your example on Irgun actually illustrates the point. They committed undeniable acts of terrorism. And our article says has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts. Our article here says The group's attacks, including suicide bombings against civilian targets and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been described by academics as acts of terrorism and has led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. We say who says they are a terrorist organization. nableezy - 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As I understood, their proposal was more about where we put that description. But I could be wrong. Yr Enw (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. I think initially it was that we call them a terrorist organization in WikiVoice (or asking why we don't), and then turned into "OK, fine, but can we say that x, y, and z call them a terrorist group, but higher up in the lead." --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy, what @Yr Enw and @Orgullomoore wrote is correct.

I was convinced to not call them "terrorists", but think the text in the lead should move from paragraph 4 to 1.

Would you be o.k. with this suggestion? Tal Galili (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I was mostly answering the whataboutism showing that there are any number of states founded on terrorist acts, including Israel, that dont mention it at all. Id be fine moving the characterization as a terrorist organization by such and such to the first paragaph, along with the view that it is a resistance organization. nableezy - 21:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As a point of interest, the Provisional Irish Republican Army article has it in the lead, when it was obviously not recognised as such by a great number of states. I’m not keen on over-emphasising the point, but it does seem notability could have role to play here. Yr Enw (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

cool, thanks. Tal Galili (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There are many similarities between ISIL and Hamas, in particular their shared philosophy that sharia should be imposed by force and that suicide attacks on civilians are a means of attaining paradise. That this or that country incorporates this similarity into their PR playbook, or that you find that jarring, is irrelevant for our purposes. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Similarities are easy to find: we're all human, for instance, or at least I assume that there are not AI chatbots patrolling here yet. Leaving aside the rather two-dimensial description above, the devil-in-the-detail of defining things hinges on the differences. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

All humans, yes. All believe that sharia should be imposed by force and that suicide attacks on civilians are a means of attaining paradise, no. If so, we would all be Islamists and jihadists. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, doubling down. Good talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Im not aware of Hamas believing Sharia should be compelled by force, rather than through democratic means. As far as suicide bombings, thats a wee bit simplistic view of their motivation. nableezy - 21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We're entering forum territory; send me an email and we can chat all day long about it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I feel its still content, Im disputing the usage of the term Jihadist and the comparison to ISIS. nableezy - 21:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In that case what you and I (and Iskandar) believe is not relevant. As for scholarly/reliable resources calling it jihadi(st), see: [17] ("Hezbollah, a Shiite militia, and Hamas, a Sunni jihadi group and an affiliate of the Muslim Brothers, are both supported by the Iranian regime.") [18] (" By emphasizing the centrality of “Jihad of the Sword” Hamas's ideas reveal a certain similarity to, or inspiration by, radical Salafi-jihadist Islamic movements.") [19] ("Al Qaeda Confronts Hamas: Divisions in the Sunni Jihadist Movement and its Implications for U.S. Policy" . . . "To explore these distinctions, this article examines the different historical trajectories and current arguments between two of the most well-known Sunni jihadists: Al Qaeda and Hamas.") [20] ("Al-Qa'ida and Hamas: The Limits of Salafi-Jihadi Pragmatism") [21] ("Hamas: A Further Exploration of Jihadist Tactics" . . . "The Islamist answer to solving the Palestinian question, Hamas advocates violent jihad until Israel is destroyed. All attempts at negotiation or a peace settlement are looked upon as a short-term truce and not a permanent peace. The organization began during the first Palestinian uprising, in December 1987. It evolved from a collection of Islamic fundamentalist and jihadist movements in Gaza, such as the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, and it absorbed the Palestinian jihadist movement, Al-Jihad (PIJ).") [22] ("Nationalist jihadi groups, such as Hizbullah and Hamas, are able to attract high levels of public support, whereas all other types of jihadi groups typically remain marginal to society . . .") [23] ("Hamas combines the Islamist ideology with Jihadist action.").

As for the comparison with ISIS, see: [24] ("In the opinion of Hamas, the solution of the Palestine problem rests in the uprooting of the State of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place.") [25] ("In addition to the doctrine of the Islamic state, Hamas also adheres to the doctrine of Palestine sacrality.") [26] ("Accordingly, Hamas adopts violence as a strategic choice, first in its struggle to seize power from Fatah, and second in its struggle to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.") [27] ("Moreover, Hamas in the Gaza Strip considers itself an Islamic party more than a national party. Especially since they supported the Islamic brotherhood when they took control of the government in Egypt. During that time relationships with Egypt enhanced. This relationship was not a result of national gathering but rather an Islamic gathering. Additionally, several announcements have been distributed in Gaza during the past few weeks with the ISIS name, along with several ISIS flags found in the region. If Hamas is not an ally in the current phase, it might be in the future due to the common values.") [28] ("Hamas Seeds Violent Videos on Sites With Little Moderation: The strategy mirrors efforts by extremist groups like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda in years past.") [29] ("On the surface of it, the Sunni Islamist group Islamic State would seem like a logical partner for the Sunni Islamist group Hamas.") --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course they advocate for the establishment of an Islamist state in all of Palestine. But they do so under the view of gaining that through democracy within an established state in Palestine. And they have been denounced by jihadist groups for that. See for example here (Yet it is important to recognize that Hamas and the global jihadi groups are deeply at odds ideologically. Indeed, in its early days, ISIS declared takfir, or excommunication, on Hamas for a host of perceived transgressions. ... But ideological divergences will limit the extent to which jihadis will be able to seize this moment to reenergize their movement. ... Yet in 2006, Hamas participated in and won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections, going on to form a unity government with Fatah, the dominant faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Al Qaeda’s leadership erupted in condemnation. Bin Laden warned Hamas about the polytheistic nature of democracy, underscoring the “prohibition on joining polytheistic assemblies.” In a 2007 speech, he went so far as to say that the Hamas leadership, by embracing the Palestinian Authority and thereby acknowledging the “agreements” that recognize Israel’s right to exist (referring to the Oslo accords), had “forsaken their religion.”) It consistently treats jihadist groups in one camp, Hamas as an Islamist militant group on the other. Or Rand Corportation: (The charter published by Hamas in 1988 perhaps clarifies the group’s reluctance to join the al-Qaeda network. It makes a clear distinction between global Islamist movements and the Hamas movement in Palestine: --The Islamic Resistance Movement is an outstanding type of Palestinian movement. It gives its loyalty to Allah, adopts Islam as a system of life, and works toward raising the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Therefore, in the shadow of Islam, it is possible for all followers of different religions to live in peace and with security over their person, property, and rights. In the absence of Islam, discord takes form, oppression and destruction are rampant, and wars and battles take place.-- So while al-Qaeda and Hamas have similar ideological roots, Hamas’s interpretation of its role in the Islamic community is narrower and focused fundamentally on the Palestinian question. This narrow focus is an important element in Hamas’s ideology. Moreover, the group has been consistent in its beliefs. Nevertheless, a shift in its focus toward the United States is possible under some circumstances, given Hamas’s strategic and operational objectives. ... It continues to argue that it does not want a civil war in the territories and will pursue its Islamic agenda through democratic means after the creation of a Palestinian state.) nableezy - 22:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

So you've come to accept the term Jihadist? I didn't see anything contradicting that term in your response, and the Foreign Affairs article seems to support it. The FA article and many others make the distinction that Hamas focuses its jihad on the Islamicization or de-Judaization of Palestine as opposed to the whole world, i.e., they are a (mostly) nationalist jihadist group as opposed to a global jihadist group, but I don't think there is any dispute that they openly endorse and advocate jihad in pursuit of an Islamic state. ISIS and Hamas have many similarities. They even do sharia patrols, allow male guardians to block women who want to travel for education (HRW), and execute political opponents. Hardly a beacon of democracy.

As for their willingness to pretend to use democratic process as a stepping stone to sharia, that's an interesting little feature, but it doesn't change the basic nature of the beast. I'm happy to agree Hamas and ISIS are not identical. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No, my point on the first source is it separates jihadist groups from Hamas, treating them as competing interests basically. Hamas is militant, Islamist, nationalist, not about imposing Sharia over the west, but aims to establish an Islamist state in Palestine through democratic means. Most sources I see do not describe them as jihadist, which from my reading is used in western contexts for groups that seek to impose such an order globally through violent means. Hamas’ terror attacks are about Palestine not about Islam. The Islamist part is their internal platform for Palestine. Their violence is Palestinian nationalist. nableezy - 00:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If Jihadist means "militant Islamic movements that are perceived as existentially threatening to the West," as Wikipedia says, then the only thing keeping Hamas from being indisputably jihadist would be that it is not "perceived as existentially threatening to the West," because Hamas is definitely a militant Islamic movement. Now, two questions arise: (1) Is it true that to be jihadist an organization must be threatening to "the West"? I don't see why. It is axiomatic that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so we shouldn't say it's so because Wikipedia says it's so. According to the article, it was first used by Indian and Pakistani mass media, obviously not part of the West. (2) Is Israel part of the West? Many would say that it is. It is west of Australia. Again consulting Wikipedia: "In modern usage, Western world refers to Europe and to areas whose populations largely originate from Europe, through the Age of Discovery's imperialism." Some would say that "Israel is a quintessentially 'Western' entity—democratic, wealthy, educated, teeming with immigrants from white-dominated regions like Europe and the United States." That is one of the major criticisms of Israel, no? That it is a Western invention carved out and propped up by Western superpowers in the middle of the Orient. Though Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel right now, it certainly aspires to be. Assuming the "the West" aspect of the definition is correct, what part of "the West" is perceived as threatened? Intuitively, I would say liberalism, democracy, separation of church and state, etc.: the so-called "Western ideals." Hamas, if it were powerful enough, would threaten these, as evidenced by its patrolling of beaches for un-Islamic swimsuits, its willingness to allow men to control women, its summary execution of political opponents, and its insistence on framing literally everything in terms of religious fundamentalism. Given all of this, are we arguing that Hamas cannot be jihadist merely because it's not perceived as threatening enough? Or because it is only perceived as threatening to non-Western Israel? Seems arbitrary. On the other hand, Firestone, quoted in the first footnote of Jihadism writes that, while the term is ill-defined, jihadism is essentially transnational or global Islamism/political Islam. Adopting this definition, the characteristic disqualifying Hamas from the jihadist category is not its failure to threaten the West but rather the confinement of its activities to Palestine, although, this assumes that Israel does not exist and that Tel Aviv and Sderot are located inside the State of Palestine. Applying this definition, Jaish-e-Mohammed would not be Jihadist ("The group's primary motive is to separate Kashmir from India and merge it into Pakistan"), but it frequently is described as such, and is described as such on Wikipedia.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I know your Arabic is probably stronger than mine but i think you’re using jihadist the way an Arabic speaker would, not how an English speaker would. Jihad fi sabil illah covers a range of things that western audiences wouldn’t really association with "jihadism". From my reading of western sources jihadism is usually meant to denote acts of international terrorism by Islamist or even just Islamic organizations or people, though usually with the aim of establishing an Islamist state. But I do think there is a distinction between nationalist and and religious ones, and I think sources put Hamas's violent actions in the former camp more often. nableezy - 02:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• I was the one who added the note initially. Wikipedia is supposed to present events from an impartial international perspective. Hamas just isn't universally reviled by world governments in the say way ISIS is that would justify flat-out calling it a terrorist organisation in the opening sentence, or mentioning its terrorist designation by (largely Israel alligned) countries within the first few sentences. That said, I'm not opposed to saying that A. that Hamas is a jihadist group and B. that Hamas has carried out what have been described as terrorist attacks. (I added the latter to the lead in fact). Reading Britannica, their position on describing Hamas is similar [30]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would oppose calling Hamas jihadist, the literature calls them Islamist much more consistently Yr Enw (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I think "jihadist" is fair, though, given their charter and istishhad worship. Sources calling them this abound. I think one must be an Islamist to be a jihadist, though an Islamist is not necessarily a jihadist. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t know of many scholars who apply the term “jihadist” to Hamas (certainly not consistently)? They might mention “jihad” as part of their programme, but “jihadist” is a label that (as far as I know) mostly tends to get used with Salafi groups. Obviously there’s not a consistent definition across all scholarship, but Islamist is much broader Yr Enw (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Jihadist in a western context usually refers to acts of international terror by Islamist groups, and I dont think it is usually applied to Hamas, which has thus far restricted its attacks to Israel and the occupied territories. nableezy - 21:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hey @Hemiauchenia, thank you for the context and discussion.

  As I mentioned in other parts of this discussion, I understand the considerations mentioned regarding MOS:TERRORIST, and I agreed that in the current state of things (having a range of countries taking different positions), then calling it a terrorist organization in Wikipedia will not be appropriate. So we're in agreement about that.

  What I've instead proposed is to move the text, which is already available in the article's lead, from the 4th paragraph to the 1st paragraph. My claim is that doing so would be in the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (as I've mentioned above), as well as aligned with other articles such as Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia and Irgun, have also taken.

  I think this aligns with the B item you've mentioned "hat Hamas has carried out what have been described as terrorist attacks.", all I'm suggesting is to move it to the first paragraph.

  WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of the characteristics you describe are simply Islamist. Also Israel = "liberalism, democracy, separation of church and state" ... pfft ... less and less according to the news the last few decades. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not Iskandar dissing Israel again! --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, don't take it from me - just ask any human rights monitor. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm an Israeli (my family has lived here for at least 8 generations), and I agree with you that the Israeli government for at least the past 15 years has become more radical, less democratic, and more religious. This is why so many of us are taking part in the 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests. That said, I think the focus of the current thread should be on including the terrorist discussion in the lead section (which a consensus seems to have been reached). Thank you all for your input <3 Tal Galili (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for a fruitful discussion, I feel I've learned from it. I have moved forward and made the change, as discussed throughout this thread. Please let me know if you have any open issues with the edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas#%22Do_not_change_this_to_%22terrorist%22_without_gaining_consensus_on_the_talkpage_first%22. Thanks all for caring about our shared resource and striving, in good faith, to find common grounds for productively describe reality as best as we can. <3 Tal Galili (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oslo years

filrstly, it should be noted that the party of which the murderer was a member was designated as a terrorist organization by the Rabin government after the massacre in the Cave of the Patriarchs. That is, the government not only condemned, but acted operatively. Second, it should be noted at the beginning of the chapter that Hamas, as part of its opposition to the agreements, has acted violently since their signing. Here is an article describing his approach in those days: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13629399908414698. Thirdly, there is no reference to the large part Yahya Ayyash played in planning the suicide attacks and also that at the time Israel neither denied nor confirmed its involvement. Fourthly, it should be noted that Hamas hit civilian buses afterwards as part of the suicide bombings if the entire episode states the matter in an apologetic tone, as if there is any justification for it. Fifth, according to this article [[31]], in Israel they were not sure about the very existence of the agreement between Hamas and the PLO ("Cairo Agreement") when at least one of the options was that Hamas would not operate in territories controlled by the PLO (without commitment regarding the rest). This UN publication claims in real time that the talks ended without agreement [[32]]: " Talks between representatives of the Palestinian Authority and the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, in Cairo, ended without agreement. According to a joint communiqué issued by the negotiators, Hamas would not urge supporters to boycott the election and would not do anything that would embarrass the Palestinian Authority. PLO officials interpreted that part of the communique as an indirect commitment against violence, while Hamas insisted no such pledge was given. (The New York Times, Reuters, AFP)" --שמי (2023) (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

@שמי (2023), could you break this apart into smaller, more easily comparable edits?

Thanks!

– Pedantical (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Potential POV image description

This edit [33] restored a description that appears to me to give rise to a potential WP:NPOV issue. The image doesn't need the caveat that "Hamas started the war". But I haven't reverted bc I know it will inevitably be "un-reverted", so looking for some consensus here first. Yr Enw (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If nobody objects I’m just gonna do it, coz it’s annoying me it being there. I guess if it’s unreverted, we can discuss here Yr Enw (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry nobody replied. I agree with you. It doesn't make sense to say ", which Hamas started . . ." It's awkward, if nothing else. People can figure that out. --Orgullomoore (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There, I did it for you. You can save your revert for something else. --Orgullomoore (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Yr Enw (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

hello, I have noticed there are historical mistakes inside this wiki. I would appreciate it if you would let me correct them. My goal is for people to know the full and correct information.

When Israel occupied the Palestinian territories in 1967, the Muslim Brotherhood members there did not take active part in the resistance, preferring to focus on social-religious reform and on restoring Islamic values.[108] This outlook changed in the early 1980s, and Islamic organizations became more involved in Palestinian politics.[109] The driving force behind this transformation was Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a Palestinian refugee from Al-Jura.[109] Of humble origins and quadriplegic,[109] he became one of the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders in Gaza. His charisma and conviction brought him a loyal group of followers, upon whom he depended for everything—from feeding him, transporting him to and from events, to communicating his strategy to the public.[110] In 1973, Yassin founded the social-religious charity Mujama al-Islamiya ("Islamic center") in Gaza as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood."

Israel has never occupied Palestine, according to the UN, before the official state of Israel, there was the British Empire, which a lot of people say it was mandatory Palestine just because the Ottoman Empire called that land "Palestina." Basically, a lot of people got confused with "Palestina" and the state of Palestine, so if we go back to the first sentence, it was never the Palestinians' territory throughout the entire history of that land. MiddleEastTeller (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done Numerous sources exist for the claim that land is under Israeli occupation. You can disagree with this(as does the Israeli government) and articles related to Israel usually note that disagreement, but we must summarize what sources claim. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify the above as well, @MiddleEastTeller, "occupation" isn't referring to Israel establishing a state in the territory of Mandatory Palestine, but the specific Israeli-occupied territories taken after 1967. So speaking about "before the official state of Israel" isn't what "occupation" is referring to anyway. Yr Enw (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  could you specify what the occupation was referring to?

  because it seems pretty clear that they think that before Israel, that land was owned by the Palestinians 89.138.12.252 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  " it seems pretty clear that they think that before Israel, that land was owned by the Palestinians ". That topic isn't what is being discussed. I explained in my previous comment the mention of occupation quoted is in reference to Israeli-occupied territories. It's a term referring to the situation post-67. Yr Enw (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Hamas’ “perceived anti-Israeli stance”

Hi,

I’m not extended autoconfirmed, or I would otherwise have made this edit request myself, but I have a small suggestion for improvement to this article.

In the third paragraph of the lead, the following sentence appears:

Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its perceived anti-Israeli stance. (emphasis added)

It feels like “perceived anti-Israeli stance” is a bit disingenuous. There is nothing purely “perceptual” about Hamas’ stance towards Israel—it is quite real, and quite obvious. Whatever lens through which one views the current escalation in violence, this sentence nearly reads like a joke in light thereof. Hamas’ charter literally calls for the annihilation of the State of Israel through jihad. In fact, just two sentences before this, the lead states:

[…] it has pursued a policy of jihad (armed struggle) against Israel.

I would suggest changing the sentence in question to something like “Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its anti-Israeli stance.” or “Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its active anti-Israeli stance.”

Thanks for your work and consideration,

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• support TaBaZzz (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"Perceived" [34] Bar Harel (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Support this generally, but can't help feel "anti-Israel stance" is a bit weak anyway. Can we bulk it out? I'd imagine a lot of sources discuss the legitimacy crisis of Fatah and stagnation of Oslo? I feel that would be a stronger sentence. Yr Enw (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)