Talk:1988 Hamas charter

NPOV

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Ian Pitchford (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. This was a collection of one-sided largely polemical sources with barely any academic sources backing some of the things in the article. nableezy - 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to add anything at all to provide the balance you consider necessary. Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea, how about the actual text in the original language of the Hamas Charter, and not just claims of what it supposedly says? What, there just isn't enough room to do this on the Internet? Is the Internet too small to fit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.56.115 (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• What's missing? That provides an additional significant point of view? Agree w/the requirement of reflecting what the RSs say. But need more specifics as to what significant RS-supported facts are not reflected.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is a one sided anti Hamas joke and should be virtually rewritZ, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this whole article be scrapped.It is frankly just a rant against Hamas.The Hamas charter is covered in the Hamas main article page and there it is of a more NPOV.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The document in question is notable and deserves an article. If people think it is POV, they can modify it, add other veiws etc. Maybe it sounds one-sided because mainstream sources do not have much positive to say about this document? BTW the words rant and joke do not belong here. - BorisG (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now read the entire article. I think this is an important article and contains solid material based on reliable sources. However the material is very poorly organsised. The entire article needs reshuffling. I may try to do it if I find the time (not likely any time soon). - BorisG (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with you Boris.The article is a one sided piece directly putting down Hamas and it is clearly a POV article that is not needed on wikipedia as this site is supposed to be a neutral point of view.The Hamas Charter consists of 36 articles and they are not all even covered in this piece, if it was NPOV then it would be covered.Before I edited the lead it read like a Hamas hates the Jews list and much of it still does read like that.The sources consist of Israeli/Jewish media as far as I can see with some books thrown in.You have Reform Judaism magazine,A link to the wikipedia page for Israeli ministry of foreign affairs,A link to the American Jewish congress wikipedia page,terrorism-info.org an Israeli propaganda site, are these your reliable sources?This article has been forked off the main Hamas page and has been used to vilify Hamas and that is not the purpose of articles on wikipedia.It is a rant and a joke as I stated.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reshaped the article and added new section, removed things that were posted twice in the article and generally streamline it and made it more neutral as opposed to the anti Hamas rant that it was.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Owain, you previously complained that the article was an anti-Hamas rant. Now it largely looks like a Hamas propaganda pamflet. Is this your goal? - BorisG (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not look anything of the sort because if it did then there would not be all those pieces on how Hamas hate the Jews.It has opinions from bother sides.Do not know here you get what you are saying from.Now if you want to see a very biased article then just click on the Hamas page, that is littered with bias.Probably comes in at 95% bias.Do not see you complaining about that fact.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Haven't yet looked at that but will in due course. Anyway, that is a discussion for another page. Or are you suggested that bias in this article is justified by bias in another? As for the present page, NPOV does not mean that opposing opinions should be given equal space. Rather, it should reflect the proportion of both views in reliable sources. I don't think it does. For instance, extensive quotes vebattim from one Hamas official is excessive and looks like propaganda. - BorisG (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see you complaining about the quotes from the charter.Why not? That charter is 36 articles long and the whole host of quotes in this article are mostly just the ones that say anything against Israel and the Jews.Now if you wanted a NPOV article then you would be up in arms about the other 80% of the charter not even getting a mention but you are not.Looks like you are a bit picky about when you complain.You could always take your own advice Boris as stated above:The document in question is notable and deserves an article. If people think it is POV, they can modify it, add other veiws etc.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I stand by that statement, and intend to do just that if and when I have time. - BorisG (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wanted to write an anti-Hamas rant, they should simply reproduce the Hamas covenant word-for-word. Indeed, it is not all anti-Jew. There are also some bits about their opposition to the Rotary Club.208.68.128.90 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The section that was here has been moved below to a new section as to facilitate that it's a new discussion -- Kendrick7^talk 04:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Explanation of Edit Request

I'm suggesting that a new subsection be added to the section "Content" after the subsection "1988 Charter." This new subsection would be called "2017 Charter" and would reflect that content of the 2017 Charter, in the same way that the content of the 1988 Charter is currently reflected, in this article. The full text of the 2017 Charter can be found here. Here are additional sources about it, from The Guardian, BBC, and CNN.

Below is a suggested sample of what the "2017 Charter" subsection could look like. I've pared down the content of some of the articles, for length and readability. But more revision could definitely be done.

Content of proposed new subsection
Robinvandijk101 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to motion that we move forward with the proposed edit as soon as possible so as to get researchers as much up-to-date information as possible in this time. Chungrob (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What's directly below is a large text dump in its current form, not too suitable for being directly pasted into the article... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has clearly been established and these edits are urgently needed DullGret (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

2017 Charter

Preamble

Palestine is the land of the Arab Palestinian people, from it they originate, to it they adhere and belong, and about it they reach out and communicate.  Palestine is a land whose status has been elevated by Islam, a faith that holds it in high esteem, that breathes through it its spirit and just values and that lays the foundation for the doctrine of defending and protecting it. Palestine is the cause of a people who have been let down by a world that fails to secure their rights and restore to them what has been usurped from them, a people whose land continues to suffer one of the worst types of occupation in this world. Palestine is a land that was seized by a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project that was founded on a false promise (the Balfour Declaration), on recognition of a usurping entity and on imposing a fait accompli by force. Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital. Palestine is the true partnership among Palestinians of all affiliations for the sublime objective of liberation. Palestine is the spirit of the Ummah and its central cause; it is the soul of humanity and its living conscience. This document is the product of deep deliberations that led us to a strong consensus. As a movement, we agree about both the theory and the practice of the vision that is outlined in the pages that follow. It is a vision that stands on solid grounds and on well-established principles. This document unveils the goals, the milestones and the way in which national unity can be enforced. It also establishes our common understanding of the Palestinian cause, the working principles which we use to further it, and the limits of flexibility used to interpret it.

The movement

Article 1. The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.

The Land of Palestine

Article 2. Palestine extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land.
Article 3. Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.

The Palestinian people

Article 4. The Palestinians are the Arabs who lived in Palestine until 1947,  irrespective of whether they were expelled from it, or stayed in it; and every person that was born to an Arab Palestinian father after that date, whether inside or outside Palestine, is a Palestinian.
Article 5. The Palestinian identity is authentic and timeless; it is passed from generation to generation. The catastrophes that have befallen the Palestinian cannot erase the identity of the Palestinian people nor can they negate it. A Palestinian shall not lose his or her national identity or rights by acquiring a second nationality.
Article 6. The Palestinian people are one people, made up of all Palestinians, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation.

Islam and Palestine

Article 7. Palestine is at the heart of the Arab and Islamic Ummah and enjoys a special status. Within Palestine there exists Jerusalem, whose precincts are blessed by Allah. Palestine is the Holy Land, which Allah has blessed for humanity. It is the Muslims’ first Qiblah and the destination of the journey performed at night by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It is the location from where he ascended to the upper heavens. It is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. Its soil contains the remains of thousands of prophets, companions and mujahidin. It is the land of people who are determined to defend the truth – within Jerusalem and its surroundings – who are not deterred or intimidated by those who oppose them and by those who betray them, and they will continue their mission until the Promise of Allah is fulfilled.
Article 8. By virtue of its justly balanced middle way and moderate spirit, Islam – for Hamas - provides a comprehensive way of life and an order that is fit for purpose at all times and in all places. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions who can practice their beliefs in security and safety. Hamas also believes that Palestine has always been and will always be a model of coexistence, tolerance and civilizational innovation.
Article 9. Hamas believes that the message of Islam upholds the values of truth, justice, freedom and dignity and prohibits all forms of injustice and incriminates oppressors irrespective of their religion, race, gender or nationality. Islam is against all forms of religious, ethnic or sectarian extremism and bigotry. It is the religion that inculcates in its followers the value of standing up to aggression and of supporting the oppressed; it motivates them to give generously and make sacrifices in defence of their dignity, their land, their peoples and their holy places.

Jerusalem

Article 10. Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Its religious, historic and civilizational status is fundamental to the Arabs, Muslims and the world at large. Its Islamic and Christian holy places belong exclusively to the Palestinian people and to the Arab and Islamic Ummah. Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished. The measures undertaken by the occupiers in Jerusalem, such as Judaisation, settlement building, and establishing facts on the ground are fundamentally null and void.
Article 11. The blessed al-Aqsa Mosque belongs exclusively to our people and our Ummah, and the occupation has no right to it whatsoever. The occupation’s plots, measures and attempts to judaize al-Aqsa and divide it are null, void and illegitimate. Refugees and right of return.
Article 12. The Palestinian cause in its essence is a cause of an occupied land and a displaced people. The right of the Palestinian refugees and the displaced to return to their homes from which they were banished or were banned from returning to – whether in the lands occupied in 1948 or in 1967 (that is the whole of Palestine), is a natural right, both individual and collective. This right is confirmed by all divine laws as well as by the basic principles of human rights and international law. It is an inalienable right and cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international.
Article 13. Hamas rejects all attempts to erase the rights of the refugees, including the attempts to settle them outside Palestine and through the projects of the alternative homeland. Compensation to the Palestinian refugees for the harm they have suffered as a consequence of banishing them and occupying their land is an absolute right that goes hand in hand with their right to return. They are to receive compensation upon their return and this does not negate or diminish their right to return.

The Zionist project

Article 14. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.
Article 15. The Zionist project does not target the Palestinian people alone; it is the enemy of the Arab 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 and its interests and stability.
Article 16. 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. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
Article 17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine. The position toward Occupation and political solutions.
Article 18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.
Article 19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
Article 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine. Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
Article 21. Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them, such as the obligations that are detrimental to the interests of our people, especially security coordination (collaboration).
Article 22. Hamas rejects all the agreements, initiatives and settlement projects that are aimed at undermining the Palestinian cause and the rights of our Palestinian people. In this regard, any stance, initiative or political programme must not in any way violate these rights and should not contravene them or contradict them.
Article 23. Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.

Resistance and Liberation

Article 24. The liberation of Palestine is the duty of the Palestinian people, and the Arab and Islamic Ummah. It is also a humanitarian obligation as necessitated by the dictates of truth and justice.
Article 25. Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance.
Article 26. Hamas rejects any attempt to undermine the resistance and its arms. It also affirms the right of our people to develop the means and mechanisms of resistance. The Palestinian political system.
Article 27. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.
Article 28. Hamas believes in, and adheres to, managing its Palestinian relations on the basis of pluralism, democracy, national partnership, acceptance of the other and the adoption of dialogue.
Article 29. The PLO is a national framework for the Palestinian people inside and outside of Palestine.  It should therefore be preserved, developed and rebuilt on democratic foundations. Article 30. Hamas stresses the necessity of building Palestinian national institutions on sound democratic principles, foremost among them are free and fair elections.
Article 31. Hamas affirms that the role of the Palestinian Authority should be to serve the Palestinian people and safeguard their security, their rights and their national project.
Article 32. Hamas stresses the necessity of maintaining the independence of Palestinian national decision-making. Outside forces should not be allowed to intervene. At the same time, Hamas affirms the responsibility of the Arabs and the Muslims and their duty and role in the liberation of Palestine from Zionist occupation.
Article 33. Palestinian society is enriched by its prominent personalities, figures, dignitaries, civil society institutions, and youth, students, trade unionist and women’s groups who together work for the achievement of national goals and societal building, pursue resistance, and achieve liberation.
Article 34. The role of Palestinian women is fundamental in the project of resistance, liberation and building the political system.

The Arab and Islamic Ummah

Article 35. The Palestinian issue is the central cause for the Arab and Islamic Ummah.
Article 36. Hamas believes in the unity of the Ummah.
Article 37. Hamas believes in cooperating with all states that support the rights of the Palestinian people. It opposes intervention in the internal affairs of any country. It also refuses to be drawn into disputes and conflicts that take place among different countries.

The Humanitarian and international aspect

Article 38. The Palestinian issue has major humanitarian and international dimensions.
Article 39. The liberation of Palestine is a legitimate activity, an act of self-defence, and the expression of the natural right of all peoples to self-determination.
Article 40. Hamas believes in the values of cooperation, justice, freedom and respect of the will of the people.
Article 41. Hamas welcomes support of the rights of the Palestinian people. Hamas denounces the Zionist project and calls for its protection for war crimes.
Article 42. Hamas condemns imposition of hegemony, all forms of colonialism, occupation, discrimination, oppression and aggression in the world.
Robinvandijk101 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

Hello!

In the Hamas Charter Wikipedia page, I request that the Analysis section of the page is removed entirely.

It currently cites Bruce Hoffman's "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology," published in The Atlantic on October 10, 2023 a total of seven times without any other citations. While this source has opinions that are possibly relevant to the 1988 document, they are too biased to be a primer "analysis." The Wiki page also does not contain the contents or an analysis of the 2017 Hamas Charter which is arguably more timely.

Thank you! Papillonjelly (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Likely to be a contested change. Melmann 13:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

Change “ The updated 2017 charter appeared to moderate Hamas's position by stating that Hamas is anti-Zionist, but retains the goal of eliminating Israel.”

To “ The updated 2017 charter appeared to moderate Hamas's position by stating that Hamas is anti-Zionist, and aims to get rid of Israeli nationalist in Palestinian territory”

Reason: this is more accurate language while the other states opinion of an interpretation as fact. 2601:152:30A:6808:A427:9545:6B3A:2C6E (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.  Spintendo  23:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Just out the whole charter

Came here looking for the original charter had to go to the bottom of the page to find a “summary” in which the worst parts are whitewashed. 2601:582:4600:700:C86C:7C22:C7E1:5036 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole text would likely be a copyright violation, and would be more suitable for Wikisource than Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Updating and organizing section ‘Relevance’

Today I’ve organized the section that for years had been titled ‘Relevance in the 21st century’ and on 1 January this year had been retitled “Was the charter relevant 1988-2017?” A charter (or “covenant”) of a movement like Hamas can have different sorts of ‘relevance’ at one and the same moment, each type of ‘relevance’ can vary through time, and different observers, even different Hamas members, can have (even at the same moment) different ideas or opinions about its relevance. Every (perceived) ‘relevance’ can change through time, for example because of ‘political developments’ or preceding statements of relevant persons. Therefore, it makes sense not only to have a section presenting a relevant number of those ideas about its relevance, but also to present them in chronological order. While working to place the already given citations in chronological order, I couldn’t help but noticing some smaller or larger mistakes in citing or paraphrasing the given sources, some omissions, some too lengthy or too vague or (partly) off-topic citations, which I’ve all ‘corrected’/adapted in the way and for the reasons I explain here below. While ‘correcting’ just one citation might easily raise the suspicion that I’m only fostering this or that ‘position’ in ‘the conflict’, by giving five or more ‘corrections’ at the same time together with the chronologization of the section I hope to take away such suspicions and convince the colleagues of the logic in this organizing (and updating) edit. To ‘balance’ the rather ‘positive’ explanation of Ahm.Yousef(Hamas) of the purpose (= ‘relevance’) of the charter in the early days of Hamas, I’ve included the earliest reference I could find (from 2004) of some institute that considered that charter to be a call for destroying the state of Israel (= ’relevance’, also). Nevertheless, ofcourse every detail in my organizing (and updating) edit stands open for debate, further improvement, etc.

1. Since 1 January, a long citation was included of Ahmed Yassin, commenting on his or Hamas’ love (and not hate) for the Jews, saying that Hamas is at discord only with those Jews that expel Palestinians from their homes and land. While the citation does not refer to any Hamas charter, placing it in a section about relevance of the 1988 charter is either off-topic, or a sample of Original Research in the sense that placing it here apparently suggests (on account only of a Wikipedia contributor) that Yassin’s reported opinion is contrasting the 1988 charter.
2. Also since 1 January, three (alleged) conclusions were included from a 2009 book from author F.Janssen. None of them referred to the Hamas charter; the Wiki contributor apparently wanted to suggest that, by publishing new and different texts, Hamas made its own charter less relevant – which is Original Research, therefore I removed it.
3. Since 16 January, a quote from Schram and Irshaid was included, (vaguely) arguing/suggesting the Hamas charter did not influence Hamas’ actions much. Their underpinning seems to me very poor (being silent about a charter in public statements doesn’t mean it has little influence); but the fact that these authors appear unknown and not-notable makes this citation (for now) encyclopedically irrelevant, so I removed it.
4. Also Since 16 January, a statement was added about “.. [not] pan-Islamist agenda [but] .. Palestine ..” which was absolutely vague because it referred to no specific date or period; but even if it would, it would still make no statement about relevance of the charter(s); so I removed it.

The first paragraph of the previous version contained three sentences of which I’ve adapted nrs. 2 and 3:

• Sentence 2 about Ahmed Yousef, was vague (“Hamas has changed its views…”) while the source it refers to is much clearer, so I made that citation more precise: Yousef claimed in 2011 that the charter of 1988 should not (any longer) be taken “literally”, Hamas “has moved on” and now (2011) accepts a “state within the 1967 borders”;
• Sentence 3 cited Kh.Meshaal(2010) correctly, but neglected the fact that Meshaal’s statement came as answer to a question from U.S. Professor Pastor, and that this answer generated a new type of ‘relevance’ for the 1988Charter, in the perception of (at least) this American professor—which I’ve now added in the article.

Second paragraph previous version, citing a 6 May 2017 interview with Kh.Mashal, I’ve slightly corrected, because the interviewer did not use the term "antisemitic statements".

One before the last paragraph:

• Started with sentence: “However many remain skeptical…”. It suggested a certainty about ‘many skeptical people’, which is not being given in the referenced article of mr. Khaled Hroub(2006). I’ve therefore adapted/corrected that ‘quotation’ from Hroub, to make clear, that Hroub, in a discussion (relevant for our article) defending/arguing his idea that Hamas had genuinely (fundamentally) changed, also presumed the existence of skepticism among many people towards his ideas. (Hroub’s: “Without a doubt...many remain highly skeptical…”, is only a rhetorical phrase people use in presenting/defending a theory, which phrase must not be understood, not be read (and reported) as a statement of a sure and clear fact—as Wikipedia did in the previous version. An arguing essay, like this from Hroub, is not a journalistic production purely reporting clear and sure and reliable facts.)
• This paragraph continued with four sentences concering statements of M. al-Zahar in 2006 and 2010. Of them, Zahar’s statements are fully preserved in the section in my updating edit, today. However, the inserted Wikipedia interpretation or ‘explanation’ (in the previous version) that Zahar specifically rejected (‘dis-recognized’) Israel “within its 1967 borders” was not in the referenced source (and misleading): Zahar in his 2010 quote simply stated that Hamas will not recognize Israel, regardless which borders ‘Israel’ would have or accept or claim; there’s no sign that he specifically reacted on someone’s “idea” concerning 1967 borders.

Last paragraph in the previous version: I have adapted this presentation of Nathan Thrall’s ideas etc. to make its language more neutral and correct. Thrall says a lot of things in the interview, but in the context of this section about ‘relevance of the 1988 charter’ the important thing he says or suggests is that Hamas might have already repudiated the 1988 charter, because since long that charter seemed to have been embarrassing some “reform-minded leaders”, but couldn’t repudiate it because of “ambivalence”. Apart from that, Thrall gives as his personal opinion, expressed in the phrase “failed to revoke”, that the Hamas leadership ought to have revoked that old charter but didn’t yet do so. But such personal opinions or abhorrence don’t belong in this section if they don’t give extra information about the (perceived) (ir)relevance of the 1988 charter, which is the topic of the section; for antipathy against that charter or against Hamas, other locations in Wikipedia, especially in article ‘Hamas’, are available. Another slip in the previous version was, that it unnecessarily suggested as fact (though reported by Thrall) that the 1988charter was a source of embarrassment: no, we only have Thrall stating his own uncorroborated theory of some “quiet embarrassment”, which theory we now can and must convey (clearly as a personal theory, not as fact) to our readers. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have removed well-sourced material and included your own original research. What is the basis for the heading "1987 until 2004"? Jansen clearly characterizes the first period as 1987-1993, and says the shift happened in the 1990s. I'm reverting this.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, did you read Janssen? He clearly says "To illustrate Hamas’s thinking during the period we refer to as the ‘first phase’ (1987-1993), we have selected two documents that largely cover the movement’s views on Israel: Hamas’s first communiqué published only days after its establishment, and the official Hamas Charter of 1988." Then later in the article he constantly contrasts "Hamas’s early documents". He ties it all together later on: "Our analysis of the selected official documents challenges the rather static approach that all Hamas documents reflect the movement’s fundamentalist creed first presented in the Hamas Charter. We have found that through its documents, Hamas has demonstrated its ability to frame positions that differ from its early and most radical communiqués, thereby distinguishing between principle and practice". "it is also known that Hamas members have expressed positions which diverge from the movement’s official documents such as the 1988 Hamas Charter."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Paul Scham and Osama Abu-Irshaid wrote a report on Hamas: Hamas: Ideological Rigidity and Political Flexibility. Scham is a professor in Jewish Studies at University of Maryland. Their opinions were quoted in Islamic Perspectives on International Conflict Resolution, published by Routledge and written by Shameer Modongal, an Assistant Professor in West Asian Studies at the University of Kerala. If you still disagree we can take this to WP:RSN.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2024

Delete "makes" from "The 1988 Charter makes draws heavily" AndyBloch (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 DoneAndre🚐 05:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced synth in lede

I haven't seen any source (other than Wikipedia [sic]) that claims the 2017 document "removed antisemitic language" and "clarified" the focus of Hamas's struggle. It's not even in the article body, it is just original synth stuck in the lede. The 2017 Document was a new document which explicitly did not repudiate the 1988 Charter, or 'remove' anything from it, nor did it claim it was clarifying earlier uncompromising statements. In particular, it very explicitly avoided even suggesting it was changing how people should evaluate or read the original Charter, so it is doubly inappropriate to inject that sort of novel claim in this article.

It is hard to find sources that make the simple claim that the 2017 document is not anti-semitic, and others claim it is (one added inline). – SJ + 23:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The 2017 document conspicuously failed to add items similar to those that had not worn well or stood up to the test of time in the 1988 document, such as the Hadith of the Gharqad Tree, the eternal jihad against the Lion's Club and Rotary, etc. etc. Hamas itself was probably just as bigoted in 2017 as it was in 1988, but it knew better how to speak to a wider audience. AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

As I noted in the talk on the Hamas page, there are plenty of RS that say the 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language, and I have added another RS that states that as well. Here is a brief overview:

Seurat, p 17: "Another noteworthy change: the anti-Semitic overtones of the Charter were entirely scrapped, replaced by a distinction made between the struggle against Zionism and enmity against the Jews."

Another one here: "The new document contains none of the anti-Semitic articles and sentences that characterized the charter. Supporters of the movement, especially in the West, advised it long ago to change these provisions."

Another one here: "The new platform also lacked the anti-Semitic language of the 1988 charter."

Another here, p 46: "The revised 2017 Charter of the Palestinian group Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, departs from its earlier rhetoric of “a struggle against the Jews” and “Israel, Jews, and Judaism” as the evil enemies of “Islam and Muslim people” (Hamas [1988] 2004) to a position of explicitly disavowing antisemitism: “Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims” (2017)."

Another here: "In 2017, Hamas revised its charter. It announced its disassociation from the Muslim Brotherhood to appease Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which had declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organization. As part of this charter change, anti-Semitic clauses were removed, and an effort was made to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism. It emphasized that anti-Semitism is a reprehensible phenomenon associated with the residents of European lands, not Arabs or Islam."

Another one here: "Hamas amended-charter 'drops anti-Semitic language and accepts 1967 borders"

And here: "A senior Hamas official said on Wednesday that the terror group, which rules the Gaza Strip, is rewriting its charter in a way that will remove its anti-Semitic language, but also made plain the group’s ongoing rejection of the Jews’ right to statehood in Israel." Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Streamlining 2017 coverage

Now that there's a separate article for the 2017 document, I combined and deduped some of the sections about it and unified references to it. Probably still could be summarized more concisely: what's relevant is its relationship to the 1988 charter, and discussions specifically comparing them. – SJ + 23:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Analysis" Section is Not Neutral

The analysis section is definitely not neutral. The last sentence is the only part that even presents itself as factual, so this is about the section minus the last sentence. It relies on only one source from one author, which was not intended to be objective. It fallaciously cherry-picks a small number of sections from the charter and then provides someone's opinions and conclusions without explanation. I think the section should be deleted and the last sentence should be moved to another section. Isonomia01 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations. Furthermore, if large numbers of people have found certain provisions of the document to be intensely objectionable, then it's not "cherry-picking" to focus more on those provisions than on less-controverisal provisions. Maybe you could be a little more specific as to what you're alleging. AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant about the sources. The majority of the "Analysis" section referred to only one source, with the exception of the last sentence, which I didn't criticize. I was alleging that the section was not neutral - it came from one source, and the source was an opinion and not encyclopedic. For the record I think the section in question has since been overhauled. Isonomia01 (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not an edit request that complies with WP:EDITXY. Non-extendedconfirmed accounts are limited to making simple straightforward evidence-based edit requests. So, when AnonMoos says 'be a little more specific', what you need to do is structure your request to comply with EDITXY. If it does not, I will archive this section of the talk page. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland I agree that this is not WP:EDITXY compliant, though I will note that flagging this section revealed a pretty significant copyvio issue, and a number of irrelevant quotes - I've removed the copyvio and refactored the analysis section to be more readable. (There was no need for an "Analysis" portion that for some reason duplicated the content of the "Antisemitism" section.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the dilemma of ECR enforcement for me. There is an unintended cost associated with strict enforcement. Things of value will definitely be lost, and it is not easy to figure out where, when and how much because the 'PIA' topic space is pretty large. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Translation of Article 20

I think the last five words might be slightly wrong:

• Article 20 Calls for action "by the people as a single body" against "a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people".

That looks like it alludes to a Quranic verse, that they have also quoted recently, about differentiating both children and elderly from younger adults, it says something like "spare the young and elderly..." and then the next bit is very violent about anyone in between, but the English there looks like differentiating only young from old in a binary way.

And why doesn't it just say "acts like Nazis"? why the longer "in a way similar to Nazism"? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It would make more logical sense to say that Children AND old people are not spared, but going beyond the translations to consider the Arabic would be "original research". AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)