Talk:Hamas

Mandates killing of Jews

The article currently says "The 1988 Hamas charter "mandate(s) the killing of Jews"." The fact that its in quote implies the text comes from the Charter. But instead it comes from an op-ed in CNN.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed it as it is pretty much repeated by the following line AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Also changed section name to "Allegations of Antisemitism". AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's a reasonable interpretation of Article 7 of the charter. If there are RS offering an alternative explanation we can add that too. Alaexis_¿question? 20:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis removed "Allegations" from the title , it should be "Allegations" as it isn't an undisputed fact and the section itself cites Hamas's disagreement. AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The 1988 charter was widely described as antisemitic, there are references in the section. Is there anyone who disputes that? Of course Hamas would deny that, that's not a RS for our purposes. Alaexis_¿question? 19:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between being antisemitic and mandating the killing of Jews. Besides one hadith (which has pre-existed Hamas by >1,000 years) I don't see anything that can be construed as killing Jews.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a big "except," the 1988 Hamas charter explicitly quotes said quotation which does include killing of Jews, not to mention other references to a struggle against Jews. Andre🚐 01:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

But just to clarify, there is absolutely nothing other a single hadith (which pre-exists Hamas and comes from Sahih Muslim) that can be construed as killing of Jews, right? If so, we really should be much more specific.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There's another sentence besides that which says, For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah's victory prevails. I mean you can try to say they're not talking about killing but defeating enemies on a battlefield with battalion I think reasonably does suggest that. There is also another sentence about killing, I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill, not to mention, a number of references to jihad fighters. Andre🚐 01:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If Israel surrenders , there will be no need to kill Jew's in Hamas POV. "Mandates killing of X" more implies that they have a specific problem with X than they are fighting their current enemies AlexBobCharles (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Mandate" might not be the best word. Maybe a better way to describe it would be "advocates" the killing of Jews. Andre🚐 02:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2024

First paragraph, Gaza is described as 'Israeli-occupied', however Israel has not occupied Gaza since its complete withdrawal from the area in 2005. Suggest to remove 'Israeli-occupied' for complete accuracy of historic events. 147.161.167.20 (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done, Gaza is considered occupied by the international community regardless of the withdrawal. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, there's at least a significant minority which subscribes to the view that the occupation ended in 2005, e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. So this seems like opinion territory, and opinions are normally attributed or qualified, not stated as facts in WP:WIKIVOICE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it a strong enough minority, though, to give due weight as though both are simply opinions? To me, the international consensus has a heavy bearing on what we say. Yr Enw (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is exceeding tiresome, we have #Gaza was not occupied above, one of several occasions this issue has been raised on this page (and other pages), generally by non EC editors, I will copy Nableezy response here:

Gaza continuing to be occupied is the majority position, with the UN, ICRC and most academics agreeing that Gaza has remained occupied as Israel continued to exercise effective military control over the territory. See for example: The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises effective control over the Strip, notably through key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land – at the exception of the border with Egypt)., RULAC: Following the implementation of the 2005 Disengagement Plan, Israeli armed forces were no longer present in the territory of the Gaza Strip. For this reason, some reject Israel’s classification as an occupying power.
However, international practice and the majority of scholarly opinions have long considered that, even after its withdrawal in 2005, Israel has continued to occupy the Gaza Strip by virtue of the control exercised over its airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, the supply of civilian infrastructure, and the exercise of key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry. ... This view has been supported in relation to the Gaza Strip by several reports and declarations by relevant international bodies, such as the UN, the ICC and the ICRC.) Scholarly opinion is more split than it is for the WB/EJ, but the majority view is that Gaza has continued to be occupied despite the disengagement. The ICJ ruling also included In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.

The situation is known as "functional occupation" and to make clear that it is a majority view, here's the NYT "Despite Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, by most legal definitions, it still occupies the territory, since it controls Gaza’s airspace, its coastline, all the land borders except with Egypt, the vast majority of goods allowed to enter and the Gazans allowed to leave." Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:WIKIVOICE tells us to avoid stating opinions as facts. An opinion being prevalent doesn't turn it into a fact (though prevalence affects other matters like WP:BALANCE). We're clearly still in opinion territory, given that the characterization in question is a matter of controversy among experts.

Contrary to some sloppy media reports, the ICJ did not and never has reached a finding on whether Gaza is occupied. At best the recent opinion suggests that occupation status is non-binary, and Gaza lies somewhere on the continuum. However, their language is also consistent with the idea of residual obligations following an occupation which ended in 2005.

See Yuji Iwasawa's separate opinion: while the Court makes clear that Israel continues to be bound by certain obligations under the law of occupation, it does not take a position as to whether Gaza remained “occupied” within the meaning of the law of occupation after 2005. Marko Milanovic also has a nice analysis. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The opinion of a single judge does not alter what the court has found. Both your links point to Marko Milanovic articles, one of which is dated from 2009 and therefore dated in this context because then the court had not made any finding on the matter (same applies to the other opinions you linked earlier) while the other 2024 article actually supports what I have said:

"For more background on the functional approach in particular, see the work of Aeyal Gross, who originated the term, and see also this post explaining how the ICRC adopted and mainstreamed it; see also the proceedings of a 2012 expert meeting on occupation convened by the ICRC, and see also the ICRC new Common Article 2 commentary, reiterating its position." <- This is the mainstream view and the court has endorsed it. This is what the ICJ said in its opinion:

"In terms of its territorial scope, question (a) refers to "the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967", which encompasses the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. The Court notes that the various United Nations organs and bodies frequently make specific reference to the different parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court also does so in the present Advisory Opinion, as appropriate. However, the Court recalls that, from a legal standpoint, the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a single territorial unit, the unity, contiguity and integrity of which is to be preserved and respected. Thus, all references in this Opinion to the Occupied Palestinian Territory are references to this single territorial unit." and

"Based on the information before it, the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005. This is even more so since 7 October 2023. In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip."

The only thing left up in the air is the degree to which Gaza is occupied and not the fact of it. Quite happy to take this to RFC if needed but on a more relevant page. Selfstudier (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Again Milanovic's analysis explains how the opinion you're quoting can be interpreted as referring to residual obligations, and Judge Iwasawa himself wrote that the Court ... does not take a position as to whether Gaza remained “occupied” ... after 2005.

Even if we were to interpret the court's broad language as saying that occupation is non-binary and Gaza is somewhere on the continuum, that doesn't support the content in question, which is outright statements that Gaza is occupied with no such nuance.

If ICJ judges were in agreement that Gaza is occupied, it would have been easy to state that plainly. (It wouldn't even require unanimity, just a simple majority.) That's not what happened here.

I don't think ICJ findings of fact would override opinions of other experts anyway, but hypothetically if we were to treat the ICJ as an arbiter of truth, it wouldn't back up the content in question. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself, functional = residual, either way, the degree has not been defined, but they are in relation to the laws of occupation and so occupation is a fact and only the degree is not specified, viz " the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip." and it is a simple matter to produce a raft of experts supporting the ICJ, since the ICJ is only reflecting the mainstream view of the same experts (and not endorsing the views of the minority of experts). Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

functional ≠ residual, the residual interpretation would be that there is no longer an occupation (functional or otherwise), yet certain obligations continue after the end of the occupation.

It's a simple matter to produce a raft of experts for either side of the controversy (maybe not of the same size, but that doesn't matter for WP:WIKIVOICE), though it wouldn't be clear which side is "supporting the ICJ" given that the ICJ has never taken a clear position on the matter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The ICJ has taken a clear position, quoted above. If it were otherwise, the RS would be saying Gaza is NOT occupied and none of them are saying that. Even your own cite to Markovic says, right upfront, "the Court has held that the law of occupation, at least to some extent, continues to apply in Gaza." and that is the position and that position was the mainstream expert view before the ruling as well as now, after it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

As the rest of Markovic's analysis explains, the law of occupation can apply in ways that do not imply Gaza is presently under occupation (even in some partial, non-binary sense). The ICJ has taken a position of sorts, but it's not a finding that Gaza is occupied or is not occupied. It's fine to document the ICJ's actual nuanced position somewhere (probably not the second sentence of this article), but Israeli-occupied isn't that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

ICJ's position is not nuanced at all. Some excerpts from their latest report published on July 19:

• Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 encompassing the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip — The “Occupied Palestinian Territory” constituting, from legal standpoint, a single territorial unit
• legal consequences arising, respectively, from Israel’s policies and practices and from its continued presence as an occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
• the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005
• the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip
• legal consequences arising from Israel’s “prolonged occupation” of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel’s occupation has lasted for more than 57 years [...] the Court must turn to the relationship between Israel, as the occupying Power, and the protected population of the occupied territory, which is governed by the law of occupation

etc etc. - Ïvana (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're implying - is it that the court has found Gaza to be occupied post-2005? That would be directly contradicted by Judge Iwasawa himself. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "implying" anything, I'm outright saying that the ICJ's position is explicit: Gaza is considered to be under occupation by Israel, both historically and currently. Judge Iwasawa's individual perspective doesn't change the court's official stance. - Ïvana (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Judge Iwasawa did not dissent from the advisory opinion (only Sebutinde did), nor did he vote against any of the dispositif. He was explicitly clarifying the position of the Court, not himself. There's a very clear contradiction between Judge Iwasawa's statement and your assertion that the ICJ's position is explicit: Gaza is considered to be under occupation by Israel. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Article 57 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to deliver a separate opinion. Separate opinions are personal views expressed by individual judges and are intended to provide insights into their perspectives. They do not alter the conclusions of the majority judgment, which reflects the official stance of the Court. In this case, the Court concludes that Gaza is occupied by Israel. The separate opinion of the judge does not change this official conclusion. - Ïvana (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Iwasawa's statement that the Court ... does not take a position as to whether Gaza remained “occupied” is quite explicitly about the court's opinion, not his own. Separate opinions serve many purposes; this one (at least the relevant part of it) was about clarifying the court's opinion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to sound repetitive but, again, separate opinions are intended to reflect individual judges perspectives and provide additional insights into their reasoning. They do not alter or clarify the Court's official conclusions. If the ICJ wanted to add a clarification, amend, or comment, it would do so through an official procedural mechanism rather than via a separate opinion of an individual judge. The official conclusion remains that Gaza is considered to be under Israeli occupation based on the degree of control Israel exercises. - Ïvana (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Iwasawa was explaining what he understood to be the court position, since he refers to the Court explicitly. If there are other experts who explicitly disagree with Iwasawa (and Markovic), maybe there can be an argument that he misunderstood the court's opinion, but otherwise I would assume that a judge who participated in drafting the opinion is more qualified to interpret it than you or I. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We're not debating Judge Iwasawa's qualifications. The crux of the issue is whether his individual, separate opinion impacts the Court's official findings. It does not. Separate opinions are meant to offer additional insights and personal viewpoints but do not alter the conclusions reached by the majority. The ICJ's advisory opinion, as reflected in the majority judgment, concludes that Gaza remains under Israeli occupation. This conclusion was reported by the BBC, The Guardian, Jacobin, OHCHR, etc etc. I don't have anything else to add without reiterating points I've already covered. - Ïvana (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I just don't see how the Court ... does not take a position as to whether Gaza remained “occupied” can be interpreted as a personal viewpoint. It's explicitly a statement about the Court's opinion. Journalists' attempts to summarize the opinion don't seem useful when we have expert analysis. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Obiter dicta and ratio decidendi are two different things, we had a similar discussion about this in Gaza genocide case, a single judge opinion/dissent does not change the court's majority verdict, the only thing of relevance here and that is also reflected in the RS. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no real dissent in Iwasawa's separate opinion (he voted for the entire dispositif, notwithstanding his complaints about its focus), and certainly not in the statement that the Court ... does not take a position as to whether Gaza remained “occupied”. There's simply no way to read this statement as anything but a clarification of the court's opinion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Reading Iwasawa directly as opposed to Markovic interpretation of what he said, it seems pretty clear that he is merely distinguishing between "functional occupation" and "occupation", a nice legal point for lawyers to argue about going forward but that's about it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said Israel should stop settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and end its "illegal" occupation of those areas and the Gaza Strip as soon as possible

Even Gaza has long been occupied, the court found, despite Israel’s 2005 disengagement, because Israel maintained authority over various aspects of life in Gaza that could be exercised when it wished

Within this framework, the ICJ clarified that its definition of "occupied Palestinian territory" included Gaza, the West Bank, and east Jerusalem Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Why look to journalists' attempts at summarizing the decision, when have expert analyses like Markovic's which are much more precise and detailed? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that the ICJ ruling in general and judge Iwasawa's opinion in particular are primary sources and we need experts' interpretations here. Markovic is definitely an expert. Random newspaper articles should have less weight that experts' opinions. It would be a good idea to find more experts like Markovic to make sure we reflect the consensus. Alaexis_¿question? 19:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alaexis on this one. However, I also agree with xDanielx that it's at least heavily disputed as to whether 2005 withdrawal ended the occupation of Gaza. Some say it did. Some do not, but we should reflect that disagreement, not ignore the minority, non-fringe POV. Andre🚐 20:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said, no problem with an RFC on this one, just not on this page, since it is incidental to the article topic. I will also want to address the other finding, that said occupation is as well, illegal.

At Gaza strip, for instance, the infobox there has:

Regarded as an occupied territory even prior to 2023 due to the Gaza blockade

This is before the ICJ findings, obviously and reflects what I said already, the prior mainstream view and that mainstream view is what has now been endorsed by the ICJ. Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip would seem like a suitable place for an RFC unless someone has a better idea. Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree we can have an RfC. I certainly have scholarly sources that say the view that Israel occupies Gaza is the majority opinion.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

Change chief of the Hamas Political Bureau presented a new Charter, in which to chief of the Hamas Political Bureau, presented a new Charter, in which Nasopanic (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 17:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

Change occupied Israeli territory of gaza strip to gaza strip 74.98.200.210 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Gaza is an Israeli occupied territory

Israeli-Blockaded

Please change “Israeli-Occupied Gaza Strip” to “Israeli-Blockaded Gaza Strip”. From this Talk section, it is clear “Israeli-Occupied” is a controversial qualifier and has been argued a non-neutral POV. While it seems odd to include any qualifier at all in front of “Gaza Strip” on this page as Hamas does not have the qualifier “terrorist group” to maintain POV neutrality, I think this is at least a more accurate and less controversial qualifier. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Will not do, until there is some consensus. Best you post this to Talk:Gaza Strip or Talk:Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hamas’s alleged pliability towards ‘only a state on West Bank + Gaza’

One editor among us believes that Hamas is acquiescing in 1967 borders and wants the Wikipedia visitors to believe that too. Hamas doesn’t acquiesce in 1967 borders, it wants to liberate Palestine in 1947 boundaries as stated with sources in our article. The ‘acquiescing’ is NOT in the article, but was in the lead with 3 refs that DON’T assert that. I don’t say my summary is perfect but at least it is based on sources. Skitash on 11 Sep placed back the ‘acquiescing’, suggesting “unjustified sourced content removal” which is not so: the “acquiesc” is unsourced. What do other colleagues want in Wiki: fantasies or facts? --Corriebertus (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Every single point made in the lede is backed by the respective sources and has been the result of consensus established here. The term "acquiesce" does not have to be specifically used in the sources for the fact itself being present in them, which it plainly is.

If you want to make your edit the new lede, propose it here, and establish consensus for it first. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Corriebertus when you say "One editor among us", are you referring to me? Then next time please just ping (Template:ping) me. I see you mentioned Skitash, let me ping them: @Skitash:.

Indeed these are all backed by sources. Your edits have been reverted by two users and I oppose them too.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev: proposed to me, to discuss here my proposal for a change in the lead section, third paragraph, replacing its second sentence: “While initially seeking a state in all of former Mandatory Palestine it began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007.”
(My proposal today is not exactly the proposal of 25 Sept 2024, but the gist of it is again: Hamas does not ‘acquiesce…’.)

To ‘acquiesce to’ something means: [1] to accept or consent by silence or by omitting to object; or: [2] to rest without opposition and discontent (usually implying previous opposition or discontent). The Wikipedia lead text until today speaks of Hamas “beginning to acquiesce to 1967 borders” in certain wikilinked agreements in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In the context (“While initially seeking a state in all of former Mandatory Palestine Hamas began acquiescing…”), this suggests that Hamas in the 2005 text declared: [1] to no longer seek “a state in all of Mandatory Palestine” but settle for (the prospect of) a state merely in “1967 borders”, and/or: [2] to end their (previous) opposition to such smaller Pl. state (by no longer seeking that larger Pl. state); and that Hamas did so again in those wikilinked agreements in 2006 and 2007.

But I see none of those two assertions [1] and/or [2] being stated in any of those three wikilinked agreements: 2005 (P.CairoDecl) is about (cosmetically) merging twelve Palestinian factions by stressing the goal of a “Palestinian state” (but not limiting that P. state anyhow); 2006 (P.Pris.Docum.) was again an attempt at conciliation of the Pl. factions, by (vaguely) calling for the establishment of a Pal. state “on all territories occupied in 1967” (which is rather vague if we consider that the PLO had recognized Israel while Hamas still considered all mandatory Palestine as to be occupied) but there’s again no mention in the PPD document of the signatories abandoning any claim on any part of that previously mandatory Palestine; 2007 (Fatah–Hamas M.Agr.) is about ending the Fatah–Hamas bloody confrontations by stressing the shared goal of “confronting the occupation” but is not discussing boundaries of a desired Palestinian state.

Some editors will argue now: it doesn’t matter what we ourselves read in the documents, it matters what scholars and other reliable sources read in them. For example: colleague @Raskolnikov.Rev: has recently (25 Sept.) contended, in this Talk, that the ‘fact’ of Hamas acquiescing to 1967 borders has “plainly” been stated by sources Roy 2013, Baconi 2018 and Seurat 2019; and he has kindly requested for a discussion here on this talk page, about this question. Well, I’m sorry to say, but the ‘fact’ of Hamas acquiescing to 1967 borders has not been “plainly” stated by sources Roy 2013, Baconi 2018 and/or Seurat 2019 (following the above given definition of ‘acquiesce’ in Wiktionary; if you adhere to a different definition, please tell us so):

The Baconi(2018) quote fails as effective source: accepting/creating “a Pal. state on 1967 borders” does not in the least preclude the possibility or reality that after gaining that ‘small’ state Hamas will continue its striving for ‘all Palestine’. Source Seurat(2019) likewise fails: “acceptance of the 1967 borders” does not in the least preclude further struggle for ‘all of Palestine’ after that acceptance. Roy(2013) is quoted as: Hamas will “accept” a “solution” comprising “Israel” next to “a Palestinian state within 1967 borders”. But also that phrase does not say or imply that after that step, Hamas will desist from pursuing their Pal. state in ‘all of Palestine’, like they declared in both of their charters (1988 and 2017), on a press conference on 1 May 2017, and again (see our subsection Hamas#2023–present) on 24 Oct 2023 and in January 2024 and implicitly in April 2024.

Ofcourse, it can be disappointing, to realise that Hamas is not yet (proven to be) acquiescing to that definitive solution of that smaller P.state, because it means that that road will remain difficult as long as Hamas is powerful and sticks to that opinion. But writing in Wikipedia that Hamas has acquiesced to that smaller P.state, when it is not true, will not likely induce Hamas to adapt its opinion to make it match with the picture described (and hoped-for) by Wikipedia.

Therefore, a correct statement in the lead section about this point, summarizing relevant information from our article (section Hamas#Policies towards Israel and Palestine) – while I concede that ofcourse a ‘relevant summary’ can be phrased and written in many other wordings, too – would be:
‘Hamas in their 1988 charter and 2017 charter, and again in 2023 and 2024, declared to seek an Islamic state in all of formerly Mandatory Palestine. Also, Hamas several times has stated or suggested that it would, under further conditions, accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.’
Please, note:

• I’ve added the word ‘Islamic’ in the sentence about Hamas seeking a Palestinian state. This addition seems relevant in the lead section: on one hand, the idea of living in an explicitly ‘Islamic’ state may repel some non-Muslims (and also some Muslims); on the other hand, Hamas may have chosen to explicitly frame their quest as an Islamic quest to choke internal Palestinian opposition and foster more fanatic Palestinian support;
• As to sentence 2 in this fragment (“several times…”): a lead section is meant to shortly summarize important issues from the larger article, not to repeat those issues at full length. The Wikipedia visitor will have to understand, that he can find those “several” instances the lead refers to, in the pertaining section of the article (Hamas#Policies towards Israel and Palestine). An open question however is: do such summarizing statements in a lead section need any ref sources, and if ‘yes’, how many? Strictly speaking, I think they can go without any ref, because the corroboration is given elsewhere in the article. In this case though, I would suggest to give the statement (“several times…”) one ref source: the ref given in section Hamas#2008–2016 for Mashal’s statement in 2008(Jazeera,22Apr2008). Another possibility is to repeat all relevant ref sources as given in the article: March 2006, June 2006 Haniyeh, Aug 2006, Nov 2008, Sep 2009, May 2010, Nov 2010, Dec 2010, 1 May 2017, 2018, Nov 2023, Jan 2024, and Apr 2024. Also, we can add the three ref sources (Seurat,Baconi,Roy) currently mentioned in the lead section by the incorrect statement about ‘acquiescing’, because all three confirm (in an optimistic voice?) Hamas’s readiness to accept a state on 1967 borders.

@VR: on 2 October wanted to make this discussion into a personal battle by attacking me with the argument: “Your edits have been reverted by two users”. This allegation is off-topic, disturbing noise and a personal attack. Also someone will (again) complain about my ‘too long’ talk posting, which is also a PA: a delicate and complex issue sometimes requires careful discussion. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC) @Skitash and Vice regent: I forgot on 9 October to ping two other colleagues here, who in the past have shown interest in this edit issue. The ‘ping’ template tells me, I need to “add new lines” (plural), now; I hope, this works. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been my impression that, per sources like this one, "Hamas advocates the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready to support the state on 1967 borders without recognising Israel or ceding any rights" [Khaled Meshal]. Of course, Bibi and co will point to the first part but that second part looks like acquiescing to me. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Corriebertus, stop making highly contentious edits on the page without consensus. You failed to get support for your proposal, and you should seek to get acceptance for it before you go ahead and make the edits.

I still oppose your suggestion because the long-standing text is accurate, reflected by RS and does not need any alteration or artificial ambiguity introduced to it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for entering an edit on the Hamas article on 12 Oct 16:26 while I had not yet seen that talk contribution of Selfstudier from six minutes earlier/12Oct 16:20/ (that’s why I said in my edit summary: “…my discussion on talk page, 9 Oct., which got no reactions”). My further reactions now, as to the real contentious issue of this talk section, I will deliver as soon as possible. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• It's... complicated? Hamas has said, and done, different things at different points in time; and various commentators have lent different degrees of trust or weight to those statements and actions. I think that our current lead is accurate as far as it goes, though, specifically noting what Hamas said and agreed to at key points (which received substantial coverage) while noting the differing interpretations of its long-term goals. It isn't easy to squeeze this all into one paragraph in the lead, and inevitably there are going to be people who feel it should lean more in one direction or another, but overall it hews closely to what the sources say and doesn't omit anything important. We could perhaps replace acquiescing with accepting (the word "accept" is used in that context in two of the sources cited); I don't think it's a huge difference, but it would perhaps be slightly less awkward wording anyway, since acquiescing is a slightly flowery word in context and implies a degree of grudgingness or passiveness that perhaps the sources don't support. --Aquillion (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm ok with that change, esp if that's what sources use.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• One problem with the edits made by Corriebertus and Alaexis[7] is that they remove the Palestinian Prisoners' Document agreement of 2006 between Hamas and Fatah. They also remove references to the 2005 Palestinian Cairo Declaration, and the 2007 Fatah–Hamas Mecca Agreement. What is the reason for that? It seems problematic to focus on a 1988 document, and then to remove references to the 2006 document, ignore the 2017 document etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion about mentioning these documents in the lede. The charter has never been revoked so it remains an important document. We may mention these documents but we can't ignore much recent statements because of the documents they agreed to almost 20 years ago. Alaexis_¿question? 19:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Surely, the 2006 Palestinian Prisoners' Document, and the 2005 and 2007 agreements, are all more recent than the 1988 Charter? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  More recent statements made my senior Hamas people in the 2020s. Alaexis_¿question? 21:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The situation is simple. ‘Acquiesce’ roots in the Latin word ‘quies’, it means: being at rest, at quiet, at calm, at peace of mind. Wikipedia should not state that Hamas is at peace with a ‘state in 1967 borders’, because we have no information telling us that they are (as I argued and explained at length, here on 9 Oct) – at least nothing in the 2005–06–07 documents says they are, and nothing in the three ref sources (Roy etc.) says they are (-- which is not to deny, though, that Hamas at times has stated or suggested to ‘accept’ such a state in case someone would ‘give’ it to them). So, sentence 11 of the lead of Hamas (‘…acquiescing’) should be corrected, replaced. (I gave a proposal for that, on 12 Oct, which is open for discussion and improvement, but is more correct that the current lead sentence.) But six (or more?) editors (@Vice regent:, @Skitash:, @Selfstudier:, @Raskolnikov.Rev:, @Lf8u2: and @Aquillion:) – one of them having conceived this current (wrong) text on 15 Dec 2023, 17:25 – insist (in this section or in an edit summary on last 11 Sep or 12 Oct) that the lead is very correct and should not be altered, though they don’t bring up any argument that refutes my reasoning (of 9 Oct); in fact, they don’t react on any of my given arguments. But merely ‘talking’ on talk page without reacting on what others have stated/contended in that section, I think is not discussing in the sense of trying to foster a mutual understanding or consensus — which I’ve understood to be the purpose of the Wikipedia talk pages — it seems more like abusing the talk page.

By the way: the issue of ‘Hamas [yes/no] accepting the 1967 borders’ appears to have been (sort of) ‘discussed’ at talk page between 13Oct2023 and 13Nov2023 (see Talk:Hamas/Archive_23#RFC:_Should_Hamas_be_described_as_accepting_the_1967_Israeli_borders_in_the_lead?). Approximately fourteen editors contributed to it, people like: @KlayCax:, Vice regent, @RadioactiveBoulevardier:, @Bharel:, @Iskandar323:, @Senorangel:, @Cjhard:, @Penguino35:, @Alaexis:, @חוקרת:, @TarnishedPath:, @Mhhossein:, Aquillion, and Selfstudier, in approx. 44 postings. Reading it now, a year later, for me it is rather hard to follow. Each of the 14 contr seems to try to ‘adapt’ the ‘RFC question’ in the direction that he/she prefers. But the word ‘acquiesce’ is never mentioned, and the question of whether HAMAS ‘at heart’ was or is ‘at peace with the 1967 borders’ was not the initial RFC-question and also seems not to have become the predominant issue of that conversation. Which I don’t ‘reproach’ them for: apparently, they had other (perhaps 13 different) urgent uncertainties in the Wiki article which they wanted to solve (first). Between 25 Oct (or 13 Nov) and 15 Dec 2023, several(!) edits then have been made in the lead, to this disputed sentence over ‘(accepting) the 1967 borders’ (at some point even the word ‘acquiescing’ creeped in…), apparently without the discussion having been re-opened on talk page (unless someone tells me that it has). This shows, that: (a) the “consensus”, that an editor on 13 Nov 2023 had proclaimed, perhaps was not all that strong and clear; and that: (b) (surely) the editor who on 15 Dec 2023 created the current sentence around ‘acquiesing’, unjustifiedly appealed to that ‘old’ (alleged, presumed) consensus of 32 days earlier in that discussion where the word ‘acquiesing’ had played NO role and the concept it stands for at most had played a (very) marginal (implicit, unoutspoken) role (for some of the contrib’s). --Corriebertus (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Acquiesce just means to go along with, which is what Hamas said they were prepared to do. No need to write a wall of text for that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is going to be relitigated can you advise what has changed since Talk:Hamas/Archive_23#RFC:_Should_Hamas_be_described_as_accepting_the_1967_Israeli_borders_in_the_lead?? TarnishedPath^talk 23:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Corriebertus could be arguing that acquiesce is the wrong word to use. Can you summarize your reason more clearly for us? Senorangel (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2024

Hamas is widely recognized as a terrorist organization by many countries. Abishek456 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Already done already mentioned in multiple places in the article

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

Please replace the current image in the main infobox with File:Emblem of Hamas.svg as that version is more official. The existing image is more of an interpretation of the emblem, and it does not accurately reflect the official design. Bambobee (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done The emblem has been reverted. –LDM2003 ^{talk to me!} 09:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

References

1988 Charter

Shouldn't the [never-revoked] 1988 Charter be properly introduced in the lead (and not just in relation to the 2017 charter)? Removed here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Pinging Makeandtoss - was it the word "genocidal" (which I thought summarised body, but could easily be dropped)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The lede is already bloated. Elaborating on the 1988 charter this much would be undue. Describing "genocidal" in WP voice is POV. Use of "however" is editorial. It was not a constructive addition. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The "however" preserves the same meaning as the "while" in the current version, so if the "however" is editorialising then the current version is. We can easily include the 1988 Charter (the subject of about 30 mentions of the body) without too many extra words, and remove the word genocidal. I'll have another go, addressing your concerns. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My attempt instantly reverted by Onceinawhile. I thought this addressed the concerns raised; can you explain how it is unbalanced? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed wording and emphasis reads like an attempt to make the article read as if antisemitism is their driving force, and make their ideology sound like that of ISIS. That is a misrepresentation of the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Makeandtoss and @Onceinawhile that the edits are unnecessary and violate NPOV. The current version already introduces and discusses the charter and its nature, and there is no need to alter its positioning to emphasize a certain point of view. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Please engage in the talk page discussion before reverting. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Bringing Alaric’s’ edit summary here: “the charter is an important topic covered at length in the article and in RS about Hamas”. Also noting that Makeandtoss and Onceinawhile did not engage in the talk page before reverting my edits, but that onus is on me/Alaexis to secure consensus for change from the stable version so it’s current correct to revert to that for now at least. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As you rightfully said , the WP:ONUS is on the inserter of the material. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how it violates NPOV. There’s nothing I added that wasn’t already there in a different place in the lead. Can you say which bits of the wording are not NPOV? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The current version has NPOV issues.

“ While the 1988 Hamas charter was widely described as antisemitic, Hamas's 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language and said Hamas's struggle was with Zionists, not Jews. ”

The two cited scholarly sources do not call the 2018 document a charter which would imply that it superseded the 1988 charter.

As to the 1988 charter, its antisemitism is notable but so are calls for jihad against Jews and for the creation of an Islamic state. It's not clear why we should mention only one aspect of it. Alaexis_¿question? 08:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, the lede is already bloated, and it should serve as a summary of the Hamas group, not of the 1988 charter. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The difference between the two version is 79 bytes, so it’s not really about bloating. It’s about whether the 1988 charter should be buried or given due prominence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Its not buried. But rather Hamas' positions on a Palestinian state should take more prominence than allegations of antisemitism. The vast majority of scholars (not affiliated with IDF) see Palestinian nationalism and resistance as central Hamas ideologies, where antisemitism is at best a secondary ideology.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Joana Cook and Shiraz Maher discuss the political development of Hamas in their The Rule is for None But Allah and are explicit about the relationship between the charter and the document (p. 144) It should be noted that this 'Guiding Principles' document did not replace the Charter, but was rather an updated communication of the group's strategy. Alaexis_¿question? 08:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Joana Cook and Shiraz Maher discuss the political development They are the editors, Nina Musgrave is the author. A fuller quote would be:

"Hamas's more balanced approach to Israel was the pointed argument that the group was not opposed to Jewish people, but rather to the 'Zionist project': 'Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.' While Hamas had made this point on several occasions, this was the first time it had made such a distinction between Jewish people and the State of Israel in a policy document. In this regard, Hamas was attempting to moderate its stance, cognisant of the maximalist tone of its 1988 Charter. It should be noted that this 'Guiding Principles' document did not replace the Charter, but was rather an updated communication of the group's strategy."

The charter(s) ("seen by some to be a new Charter" - Musgrave) should be discussed mainly via their wikilinks rather than trying to focus only on one of them. Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's seen by some we shouldn't say in in Wikivoice. We already mention the supposed change of the approach in the lede. The charter surely deserves at least one sentence there as well. Alaexis_¿question? 13:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think 2017 Hamas charter is the wrong title, RM it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a RS. Alaexis_¿question? 18:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

True but the title is notable. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis this is an ongoing discussion, please don't unilaterally make controversial edits while this is still an open topic of conversation. We should try to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR here and make a decision via discussion, first. There are plenty of RS in the 2017 article that @Selfstudier as well as in this article that refer to this as a charter. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Likewise there are plenty of RS that don't call it a charter. If you believe that "charter" is a universally accepted name to be used in wikivoice then the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, that an article with this title exists, suggests that it is a commonname for the document. Then the ONUS is on you to show that it isn't, I suggested an RM above. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:UGC explicitly lists Wikipedia as an example of a source with user-generated content which is therefore not considered a RS. Alaexis_¿question? 20:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it kind of doesn't matter whether the new document is a charter or replaces the charter. all that matters is do RS talk about the 1988 one still, a lot, which I think they do, right? Andre🚐 20:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

They do, often together with the new (whatever we want to call it). Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis It is WP:COMMON to refer to it as a charter, as backed by extensive RS and the fact that the page name itself refers to it as such. More importantly it is long-standing consensus to have it referred to as such, and since you are the one seeking to challenge that consensus, you need to find consensus for your position first before making edits in violation of that consensus.

I have noticed that you have a habit of engaging in this kind of behavior. It is highly disruptive and undermines good faith editing while leading to edit warring, which I remind you is a violation of Wiki rules. Kindly stop doing so. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from personal attacks. If you believe that "charter" is a universally accepted name to be used in wikivoice then the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis_¿question? 08:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You have that backwards and no-one has said "universally" either, that's a strawman, there is an article with title saying that it is an aka. That's what you need to challenge and your recent edit at the page doesn't do it. Selfstudier (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving on from the topic of whether "Charter" is the right word, can one of the reverters explain why they considered my recent edit (see revert here) POV/unbalanced? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• The current formulation in the lead is based on a lot of discussions last year and a couple of RfCs (all in the archives). Lets respect the longstanding version, until there is consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit

Why do we need weird "Meanwhile, reports are that" before "in the early 2020s, Hamas leaders occasionally still called for the annihilation of the state of Israel." The source doesn't hedge it this way and there are many other sources reporting on these calls made by Sinwar and others. Alaexis_¿question? 21:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

True, I do not see that hedging in the source, which reads, That’s not to say that Sinwar and other Hamas leaders did not occasionally call for Israel’s annihilation. In a 2022 speech, Sinwar warned Israelis that Hamas would one day “march through your walls to uproot your regime.” Andre🚐 21:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

“march through your walls to uproot your regime" sounds more like regime change than annihilation to me. What was the full quote? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Annihilation is WaPo's wording, not mine. That's all the quote that's given. I don't know which 2022 speech they are referring to. I don't see that particular phrase coming up in any other sources or the original speech as transcript at all, but maybe you could find it if you can translate it into Arabic and search Arabic-language RS. Assuming it was originally delivered in Arabic and not English or Hebrew in which he is both conversant if not fluent, right? Andre🚐 04:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The current sentence as it stands is not good and not supported by the given source, which is why I restored a {{clarify}} tag that was added back in February for the same content. The source says "Hamas leaders" yet only quotes Sinwar, and the chopped up quote is ambiguous and doesn't necessarily refers to "annihilation" - if anything, as VR said, sounds more like regime change. I would either remove that line or tweak it to include attribution so it is clear that this is WaPo's position instead of using wiki voice. - Ïvana (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree - this doesn't need to be attributed because WaPo is generally reliable for this information. Wapo says Hamas leaders and Wapo says annihilation. There's no reason to attribute this here, and it's not WaPo's position. WaPo is WP:GENREL and these are easily verified facts -- or at least, absent any equally or more reliable source contradicting this one, we have no reason to doubt it other than a bit of nitpicking about the quote versus WaPo's summary of it. WaPo doesn't need to show all of their work for the statement in the quote - they aren't Wikipedia. Andre🚐 05:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

WaPo also isn't a scholarly source, and there's no reason to rely on news sources that might be misinterpreting quotes when we have multiple book length treatments on the ideology of Hamas.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with VR. Since these are "easily verified facts" you're welcome to find a better source that explicitly supports the sentence in its current form. - Ïvana (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an isolated demand for rigour. If your suggestion is to use only scholarly sources then a lot of the content would have to go. For example, Al-Hayya's words about the possible truce are supported by AP [8], which is also not a scholarly source. Do you suggest removing it or adding "reports are that" to that sentence too? Alaexis_¿question? 18:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree - there's no need for a scholarly source in place of AP or WaPo for statements that are simply quoting and characterizing some speeches that journalists can be trusted to explain - unless there's any better source either contradicting that or to replace it with. Andre🚐 18:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

For non-recent events I fully agree we should mainly be relying on scholarly sources. Can you make a list of material in this article that is not cited to scholarly sources in a section below? Over time we can all try to find scholarly references for that material. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent the early 2020s are arguably too recent, I think that the scholarly coverage of the topic is still limited. I think it's fine to use newspaper articles when we talk about things that happened less than ~5 years ago, especially when it's not contradicted by better sources as @Andrevan noted.

I would not be against a different approach of using only scholarly sources but adopting this standard just for this article doesn't seem like a realistic alternative given how Wikipedia works with editors trying to add the latest outrage to it. Alaexis_¿question? 11:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

They mean the destruction of the 'Zionist project', i.e. the State of Israel. They don't mean replacing Bibi Netanyahu with a Prime Minister of Israel that they prefer

I cannot believe this even needs explaining more than a year on from the 7 October massacre

They aren't demanding reforms, or kinder governance, or a different distribution of territory between Israel and Palestine KronosAlight (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Saying that there are reports of something does not mean that there is "hedging" or ambiguity, it merely means that there are reports of something.

This has been long-standing text and your removal of it on the mistaken assumption that it is somehow "hedging" is controversial. If you want to remove that, then seek consensus for it here first.

I oppose its removal for reasons mentioned. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

On this point, I agree with Ïvana, Raskolnikov (and perhaps VR). ‘Annihilation’ is (since 1945, Endlösung, nazis) the most traumatic and thus alarming word, anyone can use or choose, in relation to Jews or the Jewish state of Israel. That’s why, as long as we have no explicit quote, from WaPo or any other source, that in the 2020s a Hamas leader concretely has called for ‘annihilation’, we must allow for the possibility that someone in the editorial board of WaPo has been ‘twisting’ or paraphrasing a less rigorous or a different word of Hamas into “annihilation”. Exact words matter terribly much. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That'd be doubting an apparently reliable source. And this wasn't an op-ed. Andre🚐 19:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

While WaPo is a RS, reliance on a single source for a broad claim is not ideal. The article attributes a particular posture to all Hamas leaders, yet it only quotes Sinwar, whose statement is ambiguous and open to interpretation; it could suggest regime change rather than outright annihilation, as VR has noted. I also agree with Corriebertus re "annihilation" being a charged term that evokes a particular sentiment in this context; more of a reason to be cautious about its alleged use. What we could do is include the quote as it is, without assigning a meaning to it; readers can do that by themselves. So we could do something like In 2022, Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, reportedly cautioned Israelis that Hamas would one day "march through your walls to uproot your regime." (slightly reworded so it doesn't fail WP:COPYVIO). There is a possibility that WaPo is paraphrasing him, and none of us know the exact content or context of the speech; but that's the closest we have to an actual quote. - Ïvana (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That would again be removing the apparently reliable statements made by Wapo. What's the policy basis for that? Andre🚐 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG: "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, but, nobody has offered any evidence to doubt this or any reason to suspect it is an error. Hamas leaders have called for annihilation all the time. [9] [10] It's really not that controversial. Andre🚐 01:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is so common, then lets cite a statement in an RS and state it without any editorializing.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is editorializing here? Sinwar and other Hamas leaders called for annihilation. That is an uncontested fact in RS. Andre🚐 02:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Then find a quote where they actually state that. And we can include it in a WP:due way.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP is a reliable source and there is no reason to doubt their assessment. In a few years we'll have scholarly sources analysing the ideology of Hamas in the late 2010s and early 2020s and then we can replace newspaper articles with something better.

Until then we can use the summary from WP. It's not just Sinwar, there were calls for the destruction of Israel from all kinds of Hamas officials, starting from Ghazi Ahmed calling for performing as many October 7's as needed until Israel is annihilated ([11], [12]) to mid-level preachers during their sermons. Alaexis_¿question? 10:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ghazi Hamad, 24 October 2023,

"Israel is a country that has no place on our land. We must remove that country, because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation, and must be finished. We are not ashamed to say this, with full force."

News anchor: "Does that mean the annihilation of Israel?"

Hamad: "Yes, of course.

[...]

"The existence of Israel is illogical. The existence of Israel is what causes all that pain, blood, and tears. It is Israel, not us. We are the victims of the occupation. Period. Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do. On October 7, October 10, October 1,000,000 – everything we do is justified." Source

Yahya Sinwar, December 2023,

""We support the eradication of Israel through armed Jihad and struggle. This is our doctrine. The occupation must be swept [away] from all our land." Source

Ismail Haniyeh, 26 July 2020,

Interviewer: "What are your political principles?"

Ismail Haniyeh: "We will not recognize Israel, Palestine must stretch from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, the Right of Return [must be fulfilled], the prisoners must be set free, and a fully sovereign Palestinian state must be established with Jerusalem as its capital."

Further sources reflecting the repeated and verbatim calls for the "annihilation" and/or "destruction" of the State of Israel by senior Hamas leadership:

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/10/1204826544/hamas-israel-war-gaza-palestinian

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/my-interview-hamas-deputy-leader-killed-beirut KronosAlight (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect: colleagues Alaexis and Andre above contend that there are ‘many’ calls ‘for the destruction of Israel’; but for specifically the period 2017 – 6 Oct. 2023 (the subsection that we are actually scrutinizing in this talk section), they as yet haven’t delivered proof of such a call. The world, and perhaps also the behavior of Hamas officials, may have changed on 7Oct2023, so a distruction call after 7 Oct proves nothing about the period preceding that day. Andre mentions one call after 7Oct2023, and also a Hamas Sermon in April(!) 2023, but that sermon calls for Allah to "bring annihilation upon the Jews" – and, even though it is a terrible prayer (I’ve placed it today in Hamas#Antisemitism), it does NOT directly refer to the State of Israel.
Apparently, if I listen to both Andre and Ïvana, even WaPo,13Nov2023, does NOT deliver any quote, from the early 2020s, for calling for “the annihilation of the state of Israel” AND DOES NOT EVEN CONTEND that such quote exists(!!), WaPo only gives a quote about “…uproot your regime”. In that case, the solution for this whole talk section seems to me very easy: let’s replace, in the here scrutinized subsection Hamas#2017– 6 Oct. 2023 (new charter), the sentence “…2020s,… occasionally…annihilation of…Israel” with the sentence, given in green text, by Ïvana, above, 11Oct.00:33 -- (but without the word "reportedly"). --Corriebertus (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, thank you for improving the article by adding that part that you added. I think when Hamas calls for bringing annihilation upon the Jews, it's reasonable to understand they mean Israel. However, I can see that it's not an exact quote. However, an exact quote from Hamas isn't necessary if reliable sources characterize their position as such, that would enable our wikivoice to do so as well. How about a scholarly source, Hew Strachan and de:Holger Afflerbach 2012, which states that Hamas believes annihilation of Israel is necessary for creating a pan-Islamic empire., or Confronting Antisemitism published by DeGruyter, edited by Dina Porat, Lawrence Schiffman, et al, written by Ljiljana Radonić, which states that Hamas still wanted to wipe Israel off the map even after the 1988 charter.. Or Alvin Hirsch Rosenfeld 2015, who says Hamas has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel and all Jews. Andre🚐 08:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Corriebertus, each statement can be interpreted differently. Perhaps you don't see the call for the destruction of the state of Israel in the words "uproot the regime." However the WP is entitled to make their own interpretations.

There is at least one more example from the same period. Haniyeh said in 2020 that one of their principles is "Palestine from the sea to the river" (around 11:40). This doesn't leave much space for Israel. I don't want to argue about this here, my point is that all these statements taken together make "Hamas sometimes called for the destruction of Israel" a reasonable summary. Alaexis_¿question? 19:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I notice, that VR agrees with this proposal of mine, in a lower talk section on this talk page, on 11 Oct.,00:59. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Corriebertus, any comment on the scholarly sources I offered in my prior message immediately above this? And I notice you implemented your proposed edit, but I do not really see a consensus on the talk page here. Can you please review the antisemitism sources about annihilation and the non-deviation from Hamas' charter and let me know what your thoughts are? They should all have appropriate page Google Books previews. Andre🚐 18:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

References

What?

Ok, some content in the page feels partial. It did not start with October 7. IDF carried out airstrikes and shot at Palestinians in Gaza prior to October 7, Reports: Le Monde Report and NPR Report, Information from AP, The Guardian Report, the 7th October incident could be said as a counterattack. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

But Sir, Madam, what do you want to see changed, in the article? --Corriebertus (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's Sir, You can see in user page. What I want changed is that there are some content in pages related to Hamas that seems partial. It always makes some claim that it all started on 7 October which is incorrect, Airstrikes and attacks on people of Gaza or Palestinian paramilitaries occurred before 7 October 2023. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Sir. I notice on your user page that you are already ‘extended confirmed’, but also that you feel rather little self-confident in your editing. Well, that’s a really honest thing to admit. I’d advice: simply go ahead, try things out, and don’t worry about mistakes. If you always edit with good faith intentions, there will always be colleagues to help you along when things might go wrong.

You say: “…there are some content in pages related to Hamas that seems partial. It always makes some claim that it all started on 7 October which is incorrect [etc.]”. That statement is too vague for me to agree or disagree with. Ofcourse, I agree, that the problem of Palestinian oppression is much older than 2023. But that isn’t being concealed. Take, for example, article Hamas: the first sentence already refers to ‘Palestinian nationalism’, as opposition to Zionism. The third sentence refers to Intifada and Israeli occupation. Et cetera.

Nevertheless, if you seen a place in Wiki where more attention should be given to the history before October 2023, just simply do that, and give a clear motivation for that edit in the edit summary line (box). If your motivation is honest and strong, colleagues won’t revert your contribution. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarify tag

@Ïvana, I'm not sure I understand what needs to be clarified here. The stated request reason is "This is too vague: how does that sound, what exactly did they call (say or write)? This (presumed) paraphrasing is not enough, and needs a date."

This is what the WP article says

That’s not to say that Sinwar and other Hamas leaders did not occasionally call for Israel’s annihilation. In a 2022 speech, Sinwar warned Israelis that Hamas would one day “march through your walls to uproot your regime.

This is our text

In the early 2020s, Hamas leaders occasionally still called for the annihilation of the state of Israel.

Do you propose adding Sinwar's quote and other quotes by Hamas members calling for the destruction of Israel? The article already has plenty of those so I think a general statement works better. Alaexis_¿question? 18:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the clarify tag is unnecessary. Andre🚐 18:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This is being discussed above. But its best to just write : "Sinwar said, in 2022, that Hamas would “march through your walls to uproot your regime." Let the readers make their interpretation. Btw, we also wouldn't do this for Benjamin Netanyahu. We wouldn't put in wikivoice that he has called for genocide, even though plenty of RS say he has. Instead we'd say "Netanyahu said A. B, C and D interpreted that statement as calling for genocide."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no RS as far as I know that says that statement. If it did, we could add to that article. Andre🚐 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise the discussion above moved beyond the "reports" issue. I'll respond there. Alaexis_¿question? 10:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hamas' ideas

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/12/exclusive-hamas-documents-sinwar-planning-iran/ 2.55.46.196 (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up new sources! Alaexis_¿question? 19:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-war.html 2.55.46.196 (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"annihilation of all Jews"

Andrevan can you find me quotes where Hamas calls for the annihilation of all Jews, like you tried to add to the article here:[13]? Furthermore, whether or not opposition to the existence of Israel (which Hamas has indeed done) is antisemitic, is an open question and should not automatically be categorized under antisemitism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The source was in the edit, reliable scholarly sources. There's no policy-based argument that requires a direct quotation if reliable secondary sources make a characterization. Andre🚐 17:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is no such quotation then we really should not be making the claim.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, might I add, if one person affiliated with Hamas made such a statement, it doesn't make it a "Hamas statement". We don't say that it is the official position of the Likud party to "burn Gaza", just because one of its MKs made such a statement[14].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan, this comment was directed to you. A source that simply says "Hamas says..." is doing a sloppy job. It should be able to name who in Hamas said what. A supporter of Hamas or a low-level official of Hamas does not represent the organization as a whole.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also Israeli soldiers are not a reliable source on Hamas either.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding Israeli soldiers' opinion of Hamas to this article is like adding Turkey's opinion that Israel is the "most fascist, racist" state[15] to Israel. If there is any merit to such claims, they will have been made by RS themselves.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Vice regent, what are you even referring 2? My source was 3 scholarly books by historians. Andre🚐 18:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A single one of those sources supports "all Jews". And it is a book about New antisemitism, and I do not think it has the weight to be cited for such an extraordinary claim. nableezy - 18:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, well at least that's an argument responsive to the actual material, unlike whatever VR is referring to here, which I still can't figure out. Still, I would argue in good faith that the book if unrebutted is sufficient for such a claim. Would you accept it if I find 2 more books saying that, or what's the bar? Andre🚐 18:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Id want sources focused on Hamas. Ideally with actual sources it cites to back up the claim. nableezy - 18:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Bartal, Shaul (2023-07-24). "Hamas, Antisemitism and Social Media Incitement". Daxiyangguo - Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Asiáticos / Portuguese Journal of Asian Studies (30): 171–193. doi:10.33167/1645-4677.DAXIYANGGUO2023.30/pp.171-193. ISSN 1645-4677.
• Spoerl, Joseph S. (2020). "Parallels between Nazi and Islamist Anti-Semitism". Jewish Political Studies Review. 31 (1/2): 210–244. ISSN 0792-335X. JSTOR 26870795.
• Webman, Esther (2013). Patterson, David; Heni, Clemens; Kressel, Neil J.; Nirenberg, David; Rosenfeld, Alvin H. (eds.). "Treading in Troubled Waters: Seeking the Roots of Muslim Antisemitism". Bustan: The Middle East Book Review. 4 (2): 113–136. doi:10.1163/18785328-13040202. ISSN 1878-5301. JSTOR 10.1163/18785328-13040202.

Andre🚐 19:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first one says Supporters of the Hamas organization will sometimes present Jews in anti-Semitic way. Why? The answer is in this article. The Jews are depicted as running after money and profit who buy the Arabs with money or as cruel soldiers who attack the innocent. Sometimes, in times of tension, caricatures will appear that explicitly call for harming the Jews. Supporters of Hamas are not Hamas. It also says Hamas’ ideological documents speak in two voices regarding the Jews. In one voice, Hamas describes the battle against the Jews with national, anti-colonial colors. In an official book by Dr. Ahmad Yousef, the former adviser of Isma’il Haniyya, (today chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau,) Hamas described its stand regarding the Zionist project by emphasizing that the struggle with the Zionist project is not a struggle with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not go fight with the Jews because they are Jews. The organization works against the Jews because they capture and attack. They captured the land of Palestine and exiled its residents. (al-Yousef, 2017, pp. 13, 207, 235, 243) Hamas declares that it “differentiates between the enemy that exploits and captures the land of Palestine and the Jews who live outside of occupied Palestine” (al-Yousef, 2017, pp. 251) whom Hamas does not attack. On May 1, 2017, Hamas publish its document of General Principles and Politics. Hamas described itself as a “Palestinian nationalist movement” and the anti-Semitic overtones of the Charter were entirely scrapped, replaced by a distinction between Zionists and Jews (Seurat 2022, p. 17). It then goes on to discuss views that are not from Hamas on social media. Please quote what in it supports what you are claiming here.

Your second one is from the JCPA, an avowedly partisan think tank. Second, it says various people have made various statements, but I again do not see where it shows that Hamas itself has made the claim youre making here, namely that it seeks to annihilate all Jews. For your third, I have searched for every instance of "Hamas" and reading the results I do not find what you are claiming here. Again, please quote what it is that it says that supports your statement here. But that is again not a source focused on Hamas, but whatever, quote please. nableezy - 19:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Bartal, while he did serve in the military, is now a historian and author. He quotes Hamas' words so it's not his bias. He's reliable enough for quoting Hamas. p.176 According to Hamas’ outlook, the Jews are the enemies of God and the Islamic faith and that is why the Hamas organization continues the anti-Jewish tradition of the Muslim Brotherhood described above. (al-Yousef, 2017, p. 101) In addition, even in the Hamas Covenant, Article 7, and in the book by Hamas activist Achmud al-Yousef, the Hadith of the “Stone and the Tree” foretells that on Judgement Day there will be a heavy battle between the Jews and the Muslims over Jerusalem and the stones and the trees will cooperate with the Muslims and will turn in the Jews to those who worship God. This Hadith, which appears in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (d. 870) and in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (d. 875) where you cannot separate between the struggle over Jerusalem with its religious link. (al-Yousef, 2017, p. 52) In other words, the war between the Jews and the Muslims in Palestine is a religious war and the establishment of the State of Israel proves, so as to speak, the correctness of the prophecy hidden in the Hadith. And if so, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is not a national war or an anti-colonial war but a religious war. Speakers for Hamas, including al- Yousef, argue that the Hamas Covenant was written in 1988 at the start of the first Palestinian intifada and represents a period of time as well as the writings of those who founded the organization. Israel and its supporters take the anti-Jewish statements that are attributed to the charter out of context. The Muslims admit that there are antisemitic sayings in the Hamas Charter but this does not lessen their criticism on Israel. (Abu Sway, 2017, pp., 121-122, 127) p. 179 Hamas makes no distinction between Judaism and Zionism, and uses Zionists and Jews synonymously and interchangeably. Judaism is a “religion that stipulates racism and hostility towards others in its books and incites to unjustly usurp Palestine under the slogan of the Holy Land.” Zionism, according to this view, transforms these Jewish ideas into reality. Likewise, terrorism is an integral and inherent pillar of Judaism, which stems from the teaching of the Torah, and which finds its expression in the Zionist massacres in Palestine. (Litvak, 2005) Hamas’ main belief is also expressed in the official announcements of the organization which was already publicized in 1995 under the name “Filastin al-Muslima”. It was publicized according to which the conflict with the Jews is a divine decree. The struggle is forever and according to the Quran the only way to solve it is through jihad

2. Spoerl p. 216 with detailed footnotes (see note 74) - member of the Palestinian legislature Marwan Abu Ras gave a Friday sermon at a mosque in the Gaza Strip in which he said, “History attests that in every era, the Jews were the most abhorred of people. Throughout history, the most hated race was the Jewish race…. Why did [Hitler] hate the Jews? Because they are a people of treachery and betrayal…. Therefore, we can never accept the Jews….” Bear in mind that the speaker was a Hamas elected official and that sermons at Gaza Strip mosques are strictly monitored and controlled by Hamas and staffed by Hamas appointees.....February 8, 2010, Al-Aqsa TV ran an interview with Abdallah Jarbu, the Hamas deputy minister of religious endowments (the ministry responsible for staffing and supervising mosques in the Gaza Strip), in which Jarbu said: [The Jews] suffer from a mental disorder, because they are thieves and aggressors.… They want to present themselves to the world as if they have rights, but in fact, they are foreign bacteria—a microbe unparalleled in the world. It’s not me who says this. The Koran itself says they have no parallel: “You shall find the strongest men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews.” May He [Allah] annihilate this filthy people who have neither religion nor conscience. I condemn whoever believes in normalizing relations with them, whoever supports sitting down with them, and whoever believes they are human beings. They are not human beings. They are not people. They have no religion, no conscience, and no moral values.

3. This one is a review of several books with footnotes. p. 127 Islamist ideology contains the “germ” of a ruthless “solution of the Jewish question,” similar to National Socialist ideology. Islamism, too, is an apocalyptic ideology that seeks to redeem the world from the evil, inhuman Jews, and the two ideologies share a similar aversion to modernism and the West, capitalism, and imperialism,39 but historically Islamist antagonism toward Western civilization began long before the 1930s, stemming first and foremost from Islam’s dichotomous worldview of good and evil, believers and non-believers, and from Muslim predicaments in the modern world. Classic European antisemitism penetrated the Islamic fundamentalist worldview, the Hamas Charter being a glaring example p. 133 e ‘timelessness’ of enmity of the Jews” clarifies the motif of the eternal enmity of the Jews that is so dominant in Islamist thought today, suggesting no room for reconciliation and justification of genocidal measures against them to free humanity from their evil. M Andre🚐 22:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in 1 says anything about killing all Jews. A member of the Palestinian legislature does not speak for Hamas. And it also does not say anything about murdering all Jews. Nothing in 3 says anything about the annihilation of all Jews. The view on Islamism being an apocalyptic ideology that seeks to redeem the world from the evil, inhuman Jews seems to be way out there in WP:FRINGE territory. nableezy - 22:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to workshop or add new text akin to what is written here. 1 goes to no distinguishing between Israel and Jews and a religious war of jihad further supporting the statements in the article, and also specific violence toward Jews. 2. This member was a member of Hamas, obviously, which is one of the parties in that parliament. and the source further does say basically Hitler was right, dehumanization, and "annihilate this filthy people" which seems pretty specific to what I've added. 3. Specifically talks about the ties to the Final Solution ie genocidal rhetoric, and mentions that explicitly "genocidal measures against them to free humanity from their evil." Don't see how all three of these don't directly support the claims, but let's take a beat and we'll do some different ones, since there's no shortage of supportive source material. Andre🚐 22:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A single Hamas member does not mean Hamas said something. Or would you suggest including the most insane thing some Likud member said in that article? nableezy - 23:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh, depends who and what it was? This is a guy going around being a Hamas spokesman? He also has a position of "the chairman of the Interior and Security Committee" [16] [17] It also says Bear in mind that the speaker was a Hamas elected official and that sermons at Gaza Strip mosques are strictly monitored and controlled by Hamas and staffed by Hamas appointees. Andre🚐 23:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That is quite literally saying any random Likud member of the Knesset should be taken as speaking for the party, including when calling for the wholesale murder of Gazans, eg here. nableezy - 01:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Likud article currently reads, In the 2019 elections, Likud was widely criticized as a "racist party" after scaremongering anti-Arab rhetoric by its members Andre🚐 07:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And we include there are antisemitic things here as well. It does not include that Likud supports genocide based on the ranting of some MK. nableezy - 12:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Shaul Bartal a major in the Israeli army? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Was indeed. nableezy - 19:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Bassam Tibi From Sayyid Qutb to Hamas: The Middle East Conflict and the Islamization of Antisemitism see p.5 [18] p.7 According to this Islamist argument, the Jews are “evil” and contaminate the world to the extent that they deserve to be annihilated. p.10 neither Qutb nor Hamas distinguish between Judaism and Zionism; p.19 Charter of Hamas ... this Hadith... prescribes the “killing of the Jew” as “a religious obligation” p.17 Palestinian al-Antawabi does not employ... anti-Islamic Zionist entity. For Antabawi all Jews are permanently conspiring in a cosmic war against Islam. His conclusion is that Jews can therefore never be appeased. Antabawi’s ... mobilized against the Jews on the grounds of a combination of the Qur’an with the gun.” 2012 Hamas declares the Jews “an entity” inimical to Islam. p.77-78 Hamas resolves not only to fight Jews and crusaders with weapons but also to neutralize their intellectual impact... Paul McGough, met with the Hamas leader Khalid Mishal and asked for his views on an adjustment of the charter; McGough reports: “On the critical question of rewriting the charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, . . . [Mishal] was unbending: ‘not a chance.’Andre🚐 07:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  This isn’t an article on Antabawi and the charter is well covered. nableezy - 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do we agree that the Bassam Tibi sources are reliable, impartial, and usable in the article? Do we agree that the sources characterize Hamas' position as religiously anti-Jewish? Does this not support the previous Alvin Rosenfeld book Deciphering the New Antisemitism that says basically the same thing? Andre🚐 22:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  The 1988 Charter indeed made antisemitic statements, ascribing negative attributes to Jews, but didn't call for killing "all Jews". However, these were then dropped in the 2017 charter which differentiated between Jews and Zionists. Tibi's article was written in 2010.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  It does not support Hamas has called for killing all Jews, which is what this is about. And we already cover antisemitism in the charter. nableezy - 00:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  The reference to this Hadith is a telling story in itself, it prescribes the “killing of the Jew” as “a religious obligation” so, in your reading, this is not about killing all Jews but only of one specific Jew? And who is that? Was the one Jew present at that music festival, and the matter is already solved?

  This whole discussion is silly. It is obvious what would happen if Hamas took over Israel: the same thing as last October, only on a much bigger scale. They say they want to kill Jews, and when they get a chance, they do it. The problem is that some people do not want to hear it because it does not fit their worldview. It strongly reminds me of those Holocaust deniers who argue that the German word "ausrotten", which appears in Nazi documents, has another, more harmless meaning beside "extirpate", "kill off", "eradicate", "exterminate" and "wipe out". Well, it does not, and it never had.

  Tibi is a very good source, and that section explicitly says they want to kill "the Jew". Maybe that wording "the Jew" is acceptable for everybody here? It is clear enough for those readers who are not ideologically committed, and, judging from this discussion, it seems to be unclear enough for those who are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  We already cover the charter in depth. And that it frames the struggle for Palestine in religious terms is something we cover. Tibi is also outdated, but even that does not support what is claimed here. As far as your it’s obvious, I am no more interested in your personal opinions than you would be of mine on what is obvious about Israel’s intentions to wipe out the Palestinians. I decline to address the outrageousness of your personal attacks here. nableezy - 13:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Spoerl p.217

  In May 2017, Hamas released “A Document of General Principles and Policies” in which it made the following statement: “Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.”56 There are at least six reasons for not taking this claim seriously. First, anti-Semitism is central to Hamas propaganda, as documented copiously below, and Hamas has not renounced or ceased producing such propaganda. Second, Hamas has made it clear that it has not revoked its 1988 Covenant, which remains its statement of foundational principles.58 Third, strictly speaking, the Hamas Covenant of 1988 focused its anti- Semitic language on Zionists, for example, describing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as the blueprint for the Zionist project (Article 32) and accusing the Zionists of aiming to “annihilate Islam” (Article 28). The May 2017 “Document” continues in this vein, albeit in somewhat less florid language, asserting that “the Zionist project does not target the Palestinian people alone; it is the enemy of the Arabic and Islamic Ummah posing a grave threat to its security and interests. It is also hostile to the Ummah’s aspirations for unity, renaissance, and liberation and has been the major source of its troubles. The Zionist project also poses a danger to international security and peace and to mankind….” (#15). As in the 1988 Covenant, the 2017 “Document” merely takes all the classical tropes of anti-Semitism and focuses them on Zionism, noting that “it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity” (#16). In effect, Hamas is saying that it is at war with all Jews except those who are anti-Zionist, thus it is not anti-Semitic. This can hardly be regarded as a serious repudiation of anti-Semitism.... Fourth, the release of the May 2017 “Document” coincides with a tightening of the grip of hardliners on the Hamas Politbureau....The suggestion that leaders such as Fathi Hammad have abandoned anti-Semitism is hardly credible...Fifth, Hamas has a well-documented history of dissembling, especially when addressing non-Muslims.

  Andre🚐 07:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Idk what it is youre researching for, but the dispute is about phrasing that Hamas's goal is the "annihilation of all Jews". If you want to discuss antisemitism by all means, but the claim under dispute here remains poorly sourced. nableezy - 01:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point of the above is that Hamas didn't repudiate their 1988 charter or antisemitism with the 2017 charter that was brought up in this thread. Is that point under dispute? Andre🚐 01:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, this thread was about you putting in to the narrative voice of Wikipedia that Hamas has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel and all Jews. nableezy - 01:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Which appears verbatim in reliable sources. Would it be helpful if we soften the language? Because that is what Bassam Tibi and Alvin Rosenfeld said. Is it the specific wording or the concept? If the wording, can you propose a wording for this concept that is acceptable based on the sources? Andre🚐 01:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  It appears in one poor source not focused on Hamas. That’s an exceptional claim and it requires exceptional sources. nableezy - 01:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

References

attitude to human life

I think it's worth adding the attitude of two of officials to civilian casualties. In a speech on the occasion of the anniversary of the massacre on October 7, Khaled Mashal spoke about the past year and claimed that Hamas is winning "because our losses are tactical and the enemy's losses are strategic." Following Palestinian criticism at net, he apologized. In an interview with a podcast over the weekend, senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan said: "This is a war. No one should consider the women and children who are killed victims. The first victims that should be looked at are first of all the ranks of the fighters, and the ranks of the leadership. We lost Ismail Haniyeh and Saleh al-Aaruri and other commanders in Palestine and beyond." He did not apologize for it despite criticism on the net. https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/opinions/813068/ --77.127.184.99 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:דור פוזנר 77.127.184.99 (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to add reliable sources for those claims.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hyyd1dssa

https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-leader-ismail-haniyeh-we-need-blood-women-children-and-elderly-gaza-%E2%80%93-so-it-awakens KronosAlight (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Question on terrorism in the lead

What is the current consensus on where their terrorist designation should be placed in the lead? Thanks, Cremastra — talk — c 21:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Was Hamas originally tacitly supported by Israeli intelligence?

(in reply to Talk:Hamas/Archive_23#Was_Hamas_originally_tacitly_supported_by_Israeli_intelligence?)
@Daydreamdays2 Here are a few links and an article about it:

• https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2023/11/21/world/israel-failed-policy/
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
• Israeli support for Hamas

The RedBurn (ϕ) 20:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a bit thin and doesn't go so far as what you are saying. Yes, Netanyahu is accused of propping up Hamas at the expense of Fatah but that's not the same as tacit support by intelligence. Andre🚐 20:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sort of, it's not really a secret. What would you like to add to the article? Alaexis_¿question? 20:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

'extended-confirmed protection'

Page ‘extended-confirmed protected’: is that (still) justified? What are the arguments, and what the criteria? When and where will this judgement be re-assessed? --Corriebertus (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This is due to Wikipedia:Contentious topics and a general site-wide policy regarding the overarching topic (you can read more about that discussion here), so it is unlikely that it will be re-assessed without the whole topic area being reassessed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reacting. I’ve looked at that page you mentioned (Wikipedia,Arbitration,Requests,Case,Palestine-Israel_articles_4,Principles ) but it is totally mysterious to me. Do you have any idea (in normal, every-day language, without technical gobbledygook), how long already this ‘topic area’ is protected, and what was initially the greatest problem that had to be remedied with this protection? --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Click edit for the page, two boxes at the top of the page, the pink one. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Hemiauchenia: Lede is a summary of the body; readers do not expect to read every single country that has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization as much as they do not expect to see every single country that does not see it as such. The burden of achieving consensus lies on yourself as the inserter of these details. [19] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been the stable compromise consensus for months in this page without objection, check the page history. People have inevitably quibbled about how Hamas's designation as a terrorist organisation should be characterised, from "many countries" to "a few Western countries", and just listing them seems to have provoked the least objection. It's not all the countries either, as Paraguay is not listed due to lack of significance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

One version of the Western World

Just saying "western" can be misleading as not everyone would agree that Japan, Israel and Paraguay belong to the "West". Alaexis_¿question? 22:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Then obviously the correct phrasing would be "a number of western countries". Consensus can be challenged and developed. I see no reason why we list the pro-terrorism label countries and not the ones opposing it. NPOV should be restored. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What countries oppose it? Not designating Hamas as terrorists is not the same as opposing such designation. Also, there are also non-Western countries that designated it as a terrorist organisation. Alaexis_¿question? 20:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Support for Hamas

This edit violates NPOV. The source clearly mentions the attack on Israel while discussing the rising popularity of Hamas, so we should mention is as well

“ The survey found a great deal of support in the West Bank and Gaza for the Oct. 7 attacks. Supportive views of Hamas are now strong in the West Bank, with almost 90 percent being very or somewhat positive, but in Gaza it's just over 50 percent—undoubtedly reflecting many years of Hamas misrule. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 20:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ive rewritten that paragraph with a better and more recent source. nableezy - 22:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

2006 source

We cannot state that Hamas accepts Israel in the present tense using Graham Usher's 2006 book. We should either add the year like I've done or remove it altogether (we have a long section dealing with the Hamas' attitude towards Israel). Reverting my addition without providing a valid reason is a violation of policy. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, @Smallangryplanet: it seems like you're using reverts as too much of a bludgeon, undoing various changes at once without sufficient explanation. Reverts should generally be finer-grained and concerns more clearly articulated. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It was long-standing consensus to not include the 2006 year specification in-page, and I don't see any need for why it has to be included, unless there's some evidence that Usher has changed his analysis or it has been supplanted by recent evidence. None of that has been provided, in fact the page has content that says otherwise.

Moreover, we also haven't added dates to every other reference on the page, and I see no need to do so here either. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Where was this consensus? We don't date attributed statements by default, but Alaexis made what seems like a reasonable point that it might make sense in this particular case since the source predates a very pertinent event. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The Usher reference has been on the page without a date specification since July.

I disagree that it's reasonable to add the date specification in-page when there's no evidence that the author in question has altered their view, and despite pertinent recent events, the claim stated by the author has been confirmed subsequent to that as well, with Hamas leaders again reiterating their "long-term truce" proposals as noted on the page.

But in any case, we have no idea how the author responded to those events, and there's no reason to speculate by adding in-page date citation and thereby suggesting it's outdated now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGEMATTERS. Also it's just common sense that something that was written 18 years ago should not be stated in present tense given lots of things that happened since then (Gaza takeover, 2017 document, the current war, etc). Alaexis_¿question? 19:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and as WP:AGEMATTERS notes, Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded. You have not presented any evidence that this has been the case. On the contrary, you list an event like the rewrite of the original Hamas charter that further confirms what Usher concluded, and the same is true with respect to the "long-term ceasefire" proposals that are noted on the page and extend throughout that period, including the reiteration of it post-October 7. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.Rev you've made 2 reverts in 24 hours. Please revert yourself.

My point is very simple, either you should use past tense for something written in 2006 or you should remove it altogether. I'd prefer the latter but I'm fine with the former as well. Alaexis_¿question? 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I misjudged by a few hours.

Will revert you again shortly unless someone else gets to it first, and ask you to not remove longstanding RS content that's being discussed in Talk and does not have consensus to be removed.

And I once more repeat my position: We do not add dates unless it is necessary, and no reason has been provided for doing so here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to establish consensus to keep this in the article, WP:ONUS is very clear about it The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. We can see in this thread that there is no consensus for keeping this passage as is.

"Will revert you again shortly unless someone else gets to it first" doesn't seem like a proper attitude for building encyclopaedia collaboratively. Alaexis_¿question? 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

As I have noted before, the RS text has been on the page since July, and you removed it now despite there being opposition to it in Talk.

You need to seek consensus to remove it, and in my view have failed to provide any good reasons for it. Moreover, after first attempting to add a date to it which was reverted by another editor precipitating this discussion, you moved to removing the entire text and source altogether.

I do not believe that this is a proper attitude for building an encyclopedia collaboratively. It's more akin to edit-warring. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I misjudged by a few hours. Will revert you again shortly unless someone else gets to it first is pretty akin to edit warring. 1rr is not an allowance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it would be best if someone else gets to it as I'm involved. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)