...and in so doing, destroyed a reference, and removed a fact cited to seven reliable sources. I've fixed that. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains inaccuracies. In its discussion of the background to the current Israeli attack, it contains a series of increasingly exaggerated assertions of how many rockets were fired from Gaza, culminating in the claim that these 'spiked at two hundred a day, according to the Israeli government.' The footnote refers to a Time magazine article, which notes that Israeli officials forecast that 'the number of Palestinian rocket attacks could now spike to 200 a day.' In other words, a prediction (which has not been borne out) of what would happen AFTER Israel attacked has been transmogrified into an event that actually occurred BEFORE the attack.

I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to undertake editing this myself. Perhaps someone else could do so. While they're at it, they might want to check most of the other assertions concerning how many rockets were launched and who launched them. I don't have the figures in front of me, but most of the claims in the article seem inflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.138.239 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

should we have islamist here? I think the term is controversial, and some people deny Islamic exists. OTOH, some people deny the moon landing happened.

The article focuses on Hamas's view of asymmetric warfare in regard to attacking civilians targets. We have many sources [3] [4] that say that Hamas offered to stop attacking Israeli civilians if Israel does that in return. We already have a quote from "Abdel Aziz Rantisi" about this, but I think this should be given more weight in the article. Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put (Suicide attacks) and (Shelling and rocket attacks on civilians) under (Attacking civilian targets), if I get no objections, I will merge the 3 section in one bigger section called (Attacking civilian targets). Imad marie (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better grammatical flow to name the section "Attacks on civilians"? Wayne (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The asymmetry is easy to understand. Hamas tries to maximize civilian casualties because they think that all civilian casualties, anywhere, will be blamed on Israel. That's why they take the Palestinians hostage, use human shields, shoot at civilians, wire Palestinian schools to blow up when Israelis shoot, etc. On the other hand Israel goes to great lengths to avoid killing civilians but it is hard because of the trap that Hamas sets up. The asymmetry is in the intentions of the two sides. This is all documented photographically.

[5]

One, that's sounding kinda like a conspiracy theory, and two, photographic evidence is worth exactly nothing as far as proving something goes. Ask Adobe all about that. Keep in mind that many people believe we never landed on the moon because of "photographic evidence". Kingoomieiii (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the sections. I may be accused of WP:CENSOR, but I removed some details that I don't think belong to this article, we don't need to list the suicide attacks here. Imad marie (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politically, I am pro-Palestinian in perspective. Even so, I see the value in a listing of attcks attributed to or claimed by any militant organisation. Related to this, I do have a quote from an AFP article on the most recent Israeli assault (27 Dec 2008) on Gaza: "Hamas has not carried out a suicide attack in Israel since January 2005." This was not quoted from any person or group but stated in a matter-of-fact way by the article itself. Below is the information for the article. It did not name any author. "At least 228 die as Israel hammers Hamas-run Gaza" http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hGdOVX8wKfbGm3FAUNLxtM9TEPZw

27 Dec 2008 Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. PinkWorld (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Pink[reply]

How would one go about citing something that didn't happen? Link to every news report since 2005 and point out that none of them are about Hamas suicide bombs going off in Israel? Kingoomieiii (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Are you planning to list the 70 rockets fired into Israel that preceded this response, including the one that killed two girls in Gaza, one aged five and the other 12? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the title of the article that I used to reference the statement about suicide attacks was about an Israeli military operation that followed the launching of several rockets from Gaza, the statement itself was about suicide attacks. That would be something akin to a person strapping on a bomb vest, entering Israel, and exploding that vest to kill himself and whatever Israelis his crude weapon can reach. These kinds of attacks are different enough from rocket attacks to be categorised differently and counted separately when the occasion calls for it. Of course, you already know this. I know that one second I was talking about rockets and the next about suicide attacks, but I thought that the difference would have been more obvious. By the way - on the topic of **rocket attacks**, I have found other sources that relate numbers of rockets launched since the expiration of the 19 June 2008 truce on 19 December 2008. This particular time frame interests me because it falls between the termination of a truce and the commencement of a military action. The BBC counted "more than 50." The Christian Science Monitor reported that "hundreds of rockets" followed the expiration of the truce. Doing some math at the Globalsecurity.org site gave me 240 rockets fired since 19 December (300 total, 40 on Sunday 28 December). I learned during the Mumbai attacks that the BBC tends to be conservative in its descriptions of unfolding events due to the preference to have multiple sources for its reports. This might explain their small numer. Below is information about these articles.

Most notable informator is Beceanu Gabriela which is a teacher. She is pretending to be, in fact she's still in activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.8.139 (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli strike kills Hamas member http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7798685.stm 25 December 2008

Gaza: Why Israel and Hamas are trading rocket fire http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1229/p01s03-wome.html By Joshua Mitnick December 29, 2008

HAMAS Rockets http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm PinkWorld (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Pink[reply]

Jaakobou, shouldn't the link you added be listed under "External links"? Why are you adding the link inside the article body? Imad marie (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy is it that you are citing from exactly? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the author of the comment above ... launching of several rockets from Gaza ... is aware of the former german "Vengance Weapons"? They were weapons of Terror .... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-weapons . To say that no suicide bombers entered the area is disengenious, as Hamas used rockets as a weapon of terror - instead of suicide bombers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.65.100 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19#Quotes in references and per WP:COPYVIO I will remove the quotes within the citations. This will also make the article a bit shorter (especially the references section) and easier to edit.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.07.2008 06:18

SOURCE: http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/document.cfm?DocumentID=384&IssueID=56&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=39&issueID=56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.210.203 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a humorous statement. You cited that Hamas is a terrorist group using the website of another terrorist group. I mean, how can you consider that the terror that Hamas commits on a group of people is comparable to the terror that the Center for Defense Information commits on another group? I think your perspective on the matter might be malnourished. I am sure we can get a statement from the 'official' leader of Hamas claiming that the CDI is a terrorist organization. Do we want Wikipedia involved with identifying terrorists? Can we have just one page for that and not make the mention on every page? I mean, every group has enemies. Should this site take a side? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas has been designated as a terrorist group by most Western governments. This is notable, and the article notes it, in an WP:NPOV way. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So. Most Western Governments are considered terrorists by Hamas. Why do we have to use the word terrorist? Doesn't everyone try to incite terror in their enemy? Why does Wikipedia have to get involved in calling names? I disagree that the article is written in a NPOV. It is obvious the article is politically and racially charged. It is not something Wikipedia HAS to say. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western governments are not the "enemy" of Hamas, and no, not "everyone" tries to "incite terror in their enemy." The article doesn't "call names", it doesn't "take a side", and it doesn't say Hamas is a terrorist organization. Instead, it merely lists the governments that have designated it as such. That is both notable, and entirely in line with WP:NPOV. It is, indeed, something Wikipeida HAS to say. Feel free to add to the article the list of western governments that Hamas has designated as terrorist. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, good save Jayjg. Going from justifying the unsigned OP to "simply stating that some nations call them terrorists". Its as if we didnt see the underlying, less than subtle, implying. But hey, since you didnt actively state it, I guess you "didnt actually mean it". Luckily for us it dosnt really matter, as since the military forces of Hamas wear uniforms and recognise a higher authority that is legally in charge of the nation, this pathetic semantics game dosnt apply. Odd isnt it, Hamas soldiers wear identifying marks (they have standards and insignias marking them as members of Hamas in combat, that they wear basic civilian garb as well dosnt excuse they are registered soliders), and yet Israel dosnt treat them as POW if captured. Hmm, how odd. I guess a terrorist state like Israel cant figure out its definitions. Whats that? Its not a terrorist state? Gee, love to hear the explanation of how its not. 60.230.218.136 (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any specific, policy-based changes you feel should be made to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alongside the words "a Palestinian Sunni paramilitary organization and political party" in the beginning of the article it should also be mentioned that Hamas is considered by many as a terrorist organisation. Since the same point has been made in the #Article Intro subsection on this page, I will make the change tomorrow, unless serious objections arise.Debresser (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed extensively. The terrorist designation by some states is already covered; there's no reason to move it into the first paragraph. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Let's hear some more opinions.Debresser (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that if we are going to include the fact that some states/organizations list Hamas as a terrorist organization that we should include the same in the article on the U.S., Brittain, Spain, France after all all of these have been declared as terrorists organizations at one time or another. No? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.200.188 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point here. Therefore I would like to ask you to bring references. I understand you would like to bring references pertaining to aforementioned states? These references should be actual, of course.Debresser (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, it seems that terroristic activity is somewhat higher on the agenda of the Hamas than of France e.g. So even if you should provide references as to the above, the point might be argued that mention of it should not be made right in the first paragraph apart from with the Hamas. Your opinions?Debresser (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "higher agenda"? When a US politician says something "We will hunt down Al Quaida in Afghanistan by whatever means necessary", is terrorism then high on the US agenda? --JensMueller (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Committing acts of terror is on their agenda. Talking about people who need obvious things explained to them... Debresser (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe that Hamas is a terrorist group, go to their website. You will see it right in their recruitment videos: they proudly launch rockets at civilians from civilian areas while dressing as civilians and using other civilians as human shields. Watch the video where they launch the rockets, and then look at where they are doing it. Don't take anyone else's word for it, get it right from Hamas themselves!

The plan to destroy Israel was central campaign material and a large factor in their victory. See here:

http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/01/hamas-and-the-palestinians.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the article as it now stands is "In Hebrew, the cognate term, hamas, literally means 'To pillage, to corrupt' (Old Testament, Job, Verse 15:33), indicating a coincidental linguistic symmetry to the views of Palestinians and Israelis on the organization."

To me, it sounds as if the meaning of the Hebrew word "hamas" is more in line with the Arabic word "fasad," even though the word "hamas" is a linguistic cognitive between Arabic and Hebrew. In Arabic, "hamas" does not seem to include a meaning for corruption; whereas the word "fasad" could refer to both pillaging and corruption. PinkWorld (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Pink[reply]

Are you saying that the Philistines and the Hebrews shared the same language? I think not. They are not even a little bit similar. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the Philistines? The Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Hebrews had very similar languages. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, your point is the Philistines and Palestinians are not the same people? A simple study of the Roman Empire will show that they are in fact the same people. To argue the difference between Ancient Hebrew and Philistine being "similar languages" and "very similar languages" would be an exercise in semantics and logic. They are no more similar than any other language 3000 years ago. I believe you might be making the mistake of comparing the modern Hebrew with its modern counterpoints. I agree that the languages, like the peoples, of that area have merged. I don't want to disrespect you in any way, but it seems like you might consider Hamas in a negative light. Should Wikipedia be the platform for the continuing the hate in the Middle East? Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming utter nonsense. The Philistines have nothing to do with the modern-day Palestinians, and no "simple study of the Roman Empire will show that they are in fact the same people". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil in this discussion. We are merely in disagreement, and nothing more. I am not asking that a change in anything here be made. I am just trying to help you understand this article better. It is well known that the Palestinians and Philistines are in fact the same people. Any google search on the matter will give you 50k pages of evidence. This information is also on Wikipedia at Palestine. The name in many languages are as follows: Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה‎ Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn. But, my favorite site for this is the Jewish Encyclopedia at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=31&letter=P&search=palestine If that is not enough, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire discusses the how the Latin name Palestine to the area by Roman emperor Hadrian after he crushed Judah in 137 AD. Don't take it personal. I learn new things on this site every day. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is well known that the Palestinians and Philistines are in fact the same people." Quote a reliable source that says so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the region may have originated in the name of these biblical people, the Philistines. The Romans called it that and so did the British Empire not too many years ago when they ruled the area. It seems that modern day Palestinians adopted this name as inhabitants of this area when they started to form their nationality (around 1900). Selalerer (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seams quite clear from the Wikipedia article Palestinian People, especially the History section, that even Palestinians themselves do not claim to be the same nation as the Philistines. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "antisemitic" does not actually mean a hatred for Jews, but a hatred for Semites, which would include Palestinians. It should be either removed, or clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.102.145 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many words in the English language whose meanings do not directly follow from their constituent parts. Antisemitism falls under this category. It's a term invented in 19th century Germany specifically to mean the dislike of Jews. Thems the words we're dealt.

96.246.15.36 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The term 'Antisemitic' might need to be removed for this article simply based on the fact that it takes us far away from the negatively charged argument surrounding this article. On another note, That second paragraph is a bear to read and even more of a beast to edit. We should dive into that well referenced area and cut out about 90% of the documentation so other editors are not so intimidated when trying to improve the article. We can write what we need to say there without all that mess. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Antisemitic" has a specific meaning in English, hatred of Jews. Since the material is indeed "well referenced", entirely WP:NPOV, highly notable, and if anything apologetic regarding Hamas, it should not be removed. Nor should the references, of course, since they are there to ensure that simple facts are not deleted, despite persistent apologetic attempts to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'anti-Semitism' is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as 'Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews'. So, even if the word etymologically might more generally mean a hatred for Semites, the actual present-day usage is respected in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.1.236 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the dictionary definition, and standard usage issues could lead to accepting the term antisemitism, but in this article and others dealing with arab vs Israeli concerns, I think it is inappropriate and confusing. Anti-zionism might be the best alternate term, although a simple more general anti-jewish could also work. Antisemitic was used by Europeans without consideration of other semitic peoples. We can and should do better in our days of globalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.154.86 (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to this article needs to be substantially pared down and reorganized. As is, it includes, in order:

• Paragraphs describing the nature of the organization and its founding. This is good but there should probably be a sentence giving a broad overview of what the organization has done since 1987.
• A detailed chronology of recent elections and battles with Fatah, complete with weasel-word-based analysis about what "many" voters and experts think of Hamas and the legality of Fatah's actions. A seemingly irrelevant quote from the charter is stuck in the middle without explanation. Some of this information should be included since it is relevant to Hamas's current status, but the level of detail here is far too extensive for an introduction. If the charter statement should be kept, there needs to be some explanation of why it is important.
• A paragraph listing the organizations that consider Hamas a terrorist organization and noting restrictive measures taken against the group by international organizations. This is probably appropriate for the introduction and should be kept.
• A paragraph regarding Hamas's funding. This is probably too much detail for the introduction, since someone who doesn't know much about Hamas is probably not looking for information about its funding sources.
• A paragraph about Hamas's claims regarding a ceasefire with Israel, which is perplexing because to this point nothing has been said about Hamas engaging in conflict with Israel.

I understand that this is a delicate subject, but that is not an excuse for allowing the introduction to become an unorganized hodgepodge of trivia like charter quotes, with very important information (most notably Hamas's role in the ongoing conflict with Israel) left out. I would try doing a rewrite myself, but I don't know that much about the group (which is why I was reading the introduction to this article). Elliotreed (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede has been massively POVd in the past day. I've fixed it up again. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added POV check due to the bias in the lead. There are some nations who recognize Hamas as a resistant movement while nothing has mentioned about it. We should add it beside the name of the countries who recognize Hamas as a terrorist movement.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which nations are those? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of the Arab (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Qatar, Sudan[6][7] and Islamic-majority nation for one. Also, possibly several South American (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia[8]) Asian, and African nations, Russia[9], some countries in Europe. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any official statements from their respective governments to that effect? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet, and I think it would be hard to find, and is it really necessary? It would be more preferred if we had those sources, but the above sources are legitimate too. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

using of "suicide attacks" that is used in this reference is better than using a new word .suicide attacks of hamas is nat many that can be said "numerous" (a few in year). --Rh-credit (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Section 2 (history) and 3 (politics) of this article, the lack of refrences became these parts unclear and unreliable for example the ideology in Section 3 not refered to sufficient article or document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madly14 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia stated: Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada. Notorious for its numerous suicide bombings and other attacks[2] on Israeli civilians and security forces, Hamas also runs extensive social programs[3] and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services[4] throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[3] Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and not religious[5] or antisemitic.[6]

However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[7] reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories.[8].

It is this last sentence, I would like to discuss. I suggest to alter it with the following sentence:

However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[7] reflect an incontrovertible evidence of Anti-zionism.

Since wikipedia has extensively defined Anti-Zionism. The reader can follow the link.

Hamas or any other arab can't be involved in any anti-semitic activity, because arabs are semitic. The jews are actually their cousins. As you noted right: "Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and not religious[5] or antisemitic." To be more accurate you can replace the term anti-semitic by anti-zionist. Officials from Hamas, Hizbollah or all other anti-zionist organizations use the term zionists when they refer to Israelis. They never use the term jews. In most moslem countries including Iran there is jews minorities. I can safely say no politically aware arab uses the term jew in reference to the israeli. They always use the term Zionist, because in deed not all Jews are Zionists. By the way there are even anti-zionist Jews, would you call them anti-semitic too. You can also safely say that Hamas or any other arabs are anti-zionists. You can also safely say that Hamas or any other arab consider zionism to be a form of racism. Hamas, main stream arabs, main stream moslems have no problem with the Jews acquiring their own country as long as it is not on Arabic soil. They consider Palestine to be an arabic soil and so it is, unless you deny palestinians existence. I am aware of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights positions about anti-zionism. Hamas doesn't believe that Jews should not have their own countries or they shouldn't have the right of self determination. Hamas, like any political party of any other country, merely believe that Jews like everybody else, should have no special claims on the party's country, because of their religious background. Where is the discrimination against Jews here? Where is the anti-semitic position. By the way I believe it is misleading and biased to call any arab an anti-semitic. It is also denying them their semitic origin, which is clearly anti-arab and consequently, anti-semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhizabr (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They consider Palestine to be an arabic soil and so it is, unless you deny palestinians existence." I don't deny the Palestinians existence and I don't consider it an Arabic soil. Most Arabs don't consider it their soil, but probably do consider it Palestinian soil. The Jewish right to the soil is well founded both in the bible and by historians, much unlike the Palestinian right to the soil. In fact, the Palestinian existence as a nation before the end of the 19th century is disputed and before the formation of a nation, there can't be no national rights. At best, the Palestinian right to the soil starts at about 1900 and even at those time they did not rule it as a nation, only owned it as individuals (some of them owned it as individuals before that but did not consider themselves Palestinians since the term did not exist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selalerer (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alhizabr! you mention a important fact, I agree and think the other articles related to this topic and antisemitic in the meaning of anti-zionist, must be changed.Morosoph00 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I 'm agree too. I think these facts must be add to section 6 of this article and describes exact Hamas idea about jews and Zionism.Erik.catalan (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing 'anti-Semitic' into 'anti-Zionist' is misleading and biased. The argument that the word 'anti-Zionist' thus can be linked to the Wikipedia article on anti-Zionism is false, as the word Antisemitism' is also covered in Wikipedia. Both in that article and in this article, the usage of the word 'Antisemitism' is in line with the definitions given in English dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, defines the word as 'Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews'. Although Hamas from time to time claims they are not against Jews, but only against Zionists, their propaganda is clearly anti-Jewish. Their denial of the Holocaust and the references to the forged 'Protocols' (one of the favourite anti-Semitic texts used in nazi-propaganda) clearly confirms the anti-Semitic policy of Hamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.1.236 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infamous Protocols are an example of anti-semitism, not anti-zionism. Therefore any work influenced by them should logically be called influenced by anti-semitism. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infamous protocols' translated to arabic is "the protocols of Zion's elders". So in Arab minds Zionists are blamed for the infamous protocols not the Jews. Most people in the arab world distinguish between the zionists and jews. Can you produce a reference where Hamas denied the holocaust. By the way there is neither arabic nor moslem anti-semitic tradition. Historically, persecuted Jews from Europe used to find refuge in arabic/moslem states, whether it is in Bagdad, Damascus, Cordoba or Istanbul. However there is a clear Arabic Anti-Zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhizabr (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user "157.193.1.236", I suggest you and other users to study this subject to realize that jews aren't zionist and zionism isn't a religion. http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html Erik.catalan (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements[7] reflect an incontrovertible evidence of Anti-zionism.

First of all I have checked the article and it seems fairly neutral. Well Done!! Next, I think that an article on the similarity of ANC and HAMAS should be researched.

mo.sayan@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanvala (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my point of view, this article doesn't seem fairly neutral and should be consider more.Erik.catalan (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must glimpse these statistics (death tolls of Hamas suicide bombings on Israeli civilians and death tolls of Israel attacks on Palestinian civilians), then talk over Hams notorious for its numerous suicide bombings on Palestinian civilians.--Erik.catalan (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "Israeli civilians"?Debresser (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a glimps on the statistics, and I think that regarding the facts, it's better to change the sentence line 4 "Notorious for its numerous suicide bombings and other attacks[2] on Israeli civilians and security forces, Hamas also runs extensive social programs[3] and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services[4] throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[3]" to this: "Renowned for its Entehari acts (انتحاری) and other attacks on Israeli security forces, Hamas also runs extensive social programs[3] and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services[4] throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Morosoph00 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I 'm agree with Morosop00 on that sentence.Erik.catalan (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the statistics of death tolls of Hamas suicide attacks in List of Hamas suicide attacks. And you can find statistics of Palestinians civilians death tolls in many web sites and news now.Erik.catalan (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in English, so I don't see how changing the phrase 'suicide bombings' into 'Entehari acts (انتحاری)' will make it more understandable. Moreover, because the part of the sentence 'on Israeli civilians' is deleted, it seems that this is a deliberate attempt to deny that these suicide bombings were almost solely targetting civilians. Such a manipulated description of the actual events, which are supported by abundant factual evidence, cannot even be considered as 'biased', as it is clearly a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.61.170 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't have permission to talk about goals of Hamas suicide bombings and must survey what did tell Hamas about its goals of these suicide bombings, but we can compare death tolls of both and if we have been unprejudiced, we deduce that Israel government is more guilty than Hamas.Erik.catalan (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do, and we are. This article will tell the WHOLE truth, in as non-biased a fashion as possible. The term "more guilty" does NOT fit that goal. Also, at least TRY to mask your affiliation when talking about making edits to article tone and masking facts you deny. Kingoomieiii (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

1976

The Oxford World Encyclopedia: "Hamas¶ The Islamic Resistance Movement founded in 1976 by Sheikh Yassin Ahmed, with the aim of creating an Islamic state in the former Palestine. "

1987:

Wikipedia: "Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada."

The Corporate Security Professional's Handbook on Terrorism: "Hamas was a splinter group of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and was created as a separate organization in 1987."

1988

http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/HAMAS2006.PDF: Hamas is a creation of the Palestinian branch of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood movement. The organization was created in 1988 by the late Sheikh 11 Ahmad Yassin, the Hamas ideologue and founder who was then a preacher of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood movement in Gaza. In concurrence with his teachings, Yassin and his followers formed Hamas as the “military wing” of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. 86.68.157.246 (talk) {BG}; edited: 86.68.157.246 (talk) {BG}

This is a standard anti-Muslim canard employed by Zionist agents and propagandists. In fact, there is no "conspiracy thinking" by Hamas. If one's family and ancestral home were destroyed by uniformed Jewish-Israeli soldiers, then how can noticing that destruction, properly labelling it an aggressive war-crime, and protesting this destruction be "conspiratorial"?

The whole article smacks of Israeli intelligence propaganda it mocks the objectivity of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.149.81 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas's founding charter makes reference to anti-zionist propaganda documents that have been proven forgeries. But I guess that was all the work of Zionist Agents.Kingoomieiii (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It is little known, and perhaps surprising, to learn that Israel initially supported and may have even assisted in funding Hamas. During the occupation, before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, Israel correctly reasoned that Gazans would be better served and received by Islamic charitable organizations creating hospitals, educational facilities, and even social welfare. This was considered preferable to Israeli direct governace at a micro-level. At the initial stages, Hamas was primarily such an organization, at least to Israeli perceptions. Furthermore, Israel had been hopeful that organizations such as Hamas would eventually keep terror groups in line, by improving the standard of living. Unfortunately, Hamas quickly adopted a military wing, and Israel's experiment with supporting social organizations for Palestinians came to an end.

I have heard analysis of Hamas suggesting the use of human shields. Does this have grounds for inclusion? Or is it overly subject to issues of balance, undue weight, and impartial tone? Perhaps the very use of the phrase ‘human shield’ instills bias in the reader, and the issue is currently far too partisan to warrant inclusion.

As an alternative, the ‘Provision of social welfare and education’ section could be supplemented with the addition of a direct quote from Fathi Hamad when addressing the Palestine Authority Legislative Council:

"For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death as you desire Life’."

Perhaps, in this existing education section, editors could write a section of Saraa Barhoum too. This could include some critical academic analysis of martyrdom themes therein, and how it relates to the martyrdom themes (e.g. ‘We desire death...’) included in the Fathi Hamad address.

I completely understand if editors disagree with any mention of this, given how prone it is to bias and POV pushing. Martin0001 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion for a new subsection in ‘Militancy and political violence’. Please expand, reduce, and question what I’ve written, with particular emphasis on NPOV, balance, use of words and impartiality:

Use of civilians

See also: Human Shields in Gaza and the West Bank

A Hamas official has commented on the use of Palestinian civilians in warfare. On February 29, 2008, Fathi Hamad, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated on Al-Aqsa TV,

For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death as you desire Life’.^[1][2]

END. What do editors think? Martin0001 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[cross-posting]

Hi FayssalF! You recently removed an addition I made to the Hamas site. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I had placed my addition, references and all, in the talk page for over 24 hours. Nobody even commented on it, so I was surprised to see you removed it after posting. Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, I guess I can't expect every editor to check the talk page first.

In any case, I suspected that the Youtube link my have been considered lackluster to some editors for such a controversial issue. That is why I added an additional link to a newspaper reporting on the speech.

I'm somewhat offended that you didn't clarify why that ref was also unacceptable. I'm also concerned that now that you've made the revision, you'll be hesitant to accept the other reference I provided, whereas if I'd never used the youtube link, you might have left the passage be. I hope this doesn't offend you or seem impolite, but from my perspective of your edit summary, it looks like you didn't consider the other reference and chose to delete all my work rather than amend to remove the youtube link.

Thanks buddy, get back to me. Martin0001 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, there are two problems with that section. a) verifiability (translation) and b) neutrality (biased sources). They are both policies and not just guidelines. I appreciate the fact that you had used the talk page before inserting the section but the fact that no one has commented doesn't mean that people agree. I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank instead as they are well-sourced and verified. And please, avoid quote farming because we have Wikisource for that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. You noted " I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank instead as they are well-sourced and verified.", I did use the source from that site... it was that so famed second reference I mentioned. Didn't you look at it? or compare it to the ref provided on the site you asked me to look at?

BTW, thanks for telling me about the quote framing thing. I guess I'll have to try and rephrase it. Or I could copy paste the relevant info from Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank, but I think what's been written for that site could be improved upon. Martin0001 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you used a source apart from the Youtube video. In fact, there are many third party sources that are unbiased wich represent neither side of the conflict. There is a big difference about the reporting of -say- the BBC (an example) and others who may be one-sided. Someone else may argue with you and refer to this video. Wikipedia is about neutrality and using one-sided sources are contradictory to our mission here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to keep in mind that there has never been a proven instance of Hamas using human shields. A recent claim of such was the bombing of a school that Hamas was using to fire missiles from. The proof was a picture of mortars fired from a street near the school. Near is not the same as in. Even the Hamas "admittions" of using human shields is deceptive as they are not claiming to deliberately use them but are talking about civilians volunteering to be human shields without being requested to do so. If biased but otherwise reliable sources claim having civilians nearby (not directly associated with militants) is the same as using human shields then it remains POV to make that claim here. Wayne (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent)

Interesting perspective Wayne, I didn’t think of that. It could be a POV to present the quote as an ‘admission’. What are we actually seeing? Fathi Hamad said something, and the evidence of it being a reality is not addressed, making it closer to politics than Hamas tactics. We could emphasise that Hamad was testifying nothing more than a value of Hamas, in contrast to portraying their words as an admission of practice.

Some presentations, such as framing it under headings like ‘Death industry’, are prone to POV. However, we could place the quote into a section called ‘Themes of martyrdom’, within the ‘Militancy and political violence’ section. The information does contain themes of martyrdom (e.g. ‘We desire death as you desire Life’, ‘death became an industry’, ‘Palestinians created a human shield’). The term ‘martyrdom’ is not negative/positive in and of itself, and the addition of ‘themes’ makes it more conservative as it implies only the mere presence of ‘themes’ within Hamas militancy and political violence. You could even call it ‘Political themes of martyrdom’. How about this:

A Hamas official has commented on the role of Palestinian civilians in warfare. On February 29, 2008, Fathi Hamad, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated on Al-Aqsa TV, “For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death as you desire Life’."^[3]

How about that? Martin0001 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the deafening silence of consensus I hear? Hmmm, perhaps people have lives. I’ll wait a few hours and reintroduce our new version this afternoon. Martin0001 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Poorly sourced fringe view. No major media picked this up. Can you find any real WP:RS saying this is the mainstream Hamas opinion?

Until then, this stays out. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 15.01.2009 12:09

No worries:

[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

Get back to me. Martin0001 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, people have moved on from this issue, leaving me behind in a lukewarm pool of consensus. I'm going to make that addition again, after selecting two of what I think are the strongest refs. At the moment, I'm thinking [20] and [21]. Martin0001 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to go down that road? According to the UN and Red Cross just to name two vocal sources Hamas has never used human shields. Israel on the other hand regularly uses them so will you mention that as well? The IDF call it the "neighbour procedure" and it is as much using human shields as the worst Hamas has been accused of. I believe some soldiers were reprimanded recently for forcing civilians to walk in front of them. Only last week Amnesty International accused the IDF of regularly using Palestinians houses, while refusing to allow the occupants to leave, as observation posts and firing positions. This is an encyclopedia not a propaganda paper. Wayne (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on adding that quote, which can be taken out of context, then I suggest you include this recent one which is far more relevant and from a more notable source, Hamas founder Mahmud az-Zahar: "We used peaceful demonstrations in the first intifada and Israel used force. We threw stones and they used force, deportations and mass killings. We’re playing inside the body of Israel. It used dirty methods in order to strengthen their existence and to extend their borders. We don’t admire violence, but we have been forced to use methods against Israeli aggression." Wayne (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(removed indent) Hey there Wayne, thanks for the feedback. I remember your original criticisms regarding this inclusion; you were an important element in having the entry rephrased to the improved form. I was certain to make sure it’s not a statement concluding that Hamas use human shields, instead framing it more accurately as a notable piece of information relating to political themes of martyrdom. This evidence does not insist that human shields are a Hamas military tactic. Instead, it describes in the briefest fashion that Hamas militancy maintains some themes of martyrdom. This is difficult to dispute.

On your other point, are you suggesting that Hamas’ themes of martyrdom somehow validates including information of Israeli tactics in the Hamas article? I researched the “neighbour procedure" and think it’s interesting. However, I disagree with your conclusions about balancing the Hamas article with its inclusion. I would think that the article on Israel would be a more appropriate location. If it’s important to you, perhaps you could try to add it to the Israeli article, as a piece on the IDF disregarding the 6 October (2005) decision from the Israeli High Court of Justice, after the 2002 petition from human rights organizations (e.g. B'Tselem). If on the other hand you were suggesting a more comparative approach, then the broader Human_shield article is more fitting. That article details Israeli human rights violations in this area, which is one of the reasons I added it to the ‘see also’ link, and it could benefit from inclusion of the ‘neighbour procedure’. Best of luck, and you might find these refs useful: [22][23][24]

I wouldn’t say az-Zahar’s words are “far more relevant” than the Fathi Hamad’s in relation to themes of martyrdom. That quote seems to relate to his perceptions of the First_Intifada, not martyrdom. Regarding your source, I’ve only found one reference in The National from Abu Dhabi, which would actually make that quote a fringe issue. I only emphasise it as az-Zahar’s ‘perceptions’ as there is contradictory evidence catalogued here First_Intifada, which is a similar reason (contradictory evidence) we reduced Hamad’s quote from the loaded ‘Human shields’ to the accurate ‘Themes of martyrdom’. You could try placing it in the Mahmoud_al-Zahar article, but the paucity of refs makes me sceptical.

I’m offended by your statement that “This is an encyclopedia (sic) not a propaganda paper.” implying that what I’m saying is just propaganda. I have been working very hard to ensure that my entries are balanced, putting my amendments to editors over and over, and doing my best to describe exactly what I’ve found without imparting bias (AGF). Martin0001 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Martin0001: my apologies. I was tired and thought it was a continuation of the Human Shield topic again so please read my post in that light. If your quote is on another topic (Themes of martyrdom) then I have no problem with it. As for the propaganda accusation, it was not directed at you personally, I noticed that some nuetral statements in the article have been slightly reworded to make Hamas appear more "evil"? and a few incidents added that even Israel doesn't blame Hamas for. I then read your post and jumped the gun. I have no problem with your editing and applaud your explanations of edits and acceptance of critism in talk. Keep up the good work. Wayne (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not recognise either [25] or [26] as reliable sources. Micah Halpern [27] is an Israeli-American whose writing is consistently biased against the Palestinian perspective. [28] would ordinarily have pro-Palestinian bias, though, so the fact that it has come out with an article connecting Hamas to a culture of death is interesting. At the end of it all, though, I really would like to see some more mainstream sourcing for your proposed addition to the article. PinkWorld (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

PinkWorld. It’s difficult to argue that The_Spectator is not a mainstream source, given that it is a worldwide media outlet that’s been published since 1828. National_Review has a similar record, published since 1955. Here’s another mention in a premier Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph[29], which has been publishing since 1879 and is arguably one of the largest newspapers in Australia. These are at the very least mainstream sources, if not global media heavyweights (esp. The Spectator). That’s not even considering the coverage by organisations like Bridges for Peace (founded in 1976), and secondary reporting from bodies such as Snaphanen [30] and News Blaze[31]. What’s more, the translation comes from both the Gloria Center and MEMRI. This is then reported by Palestinian_Media_Watch, which you yourself say has a pro-Palestinian bias, and could be interpreted as a third independent validation of the translation.

To summarize: The translation is accurate according to three separate groups, the issue has been well reported by multiple mainstream global news bodies, and the addition is conservatively worded and balanced. Martin0001 (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Daily Telegraph isn’t the largest Australian newspaper, the Herald_Sun (1990) is, reaching 1.5 million readers. Apart from this paper and the Daily Telegraph, The_Australian (1964) also reported it, giving us three mainstream sources in Australia alone [32][33][34]. This has an estimated total readership of over two million people. Martin0001 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Shalev even included it in her speech to the UN Security Council. [35] Martin0001 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hamas Charter should have its own wikipedia page just like every other consitution in the world. The repetitive downplaying of the obvious anti-semitism in the charter, and Hamas' clear intention to destroy Israel, whether it be before or after Palestinian statehood should not be omitted from this article. Whether you agree or disagree with Hamas and its methods, it's stated goals should not be omitted from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.152.40 (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was on Wikisource, but got deleted: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant . You can see pretty much the stable version before it got deleted at http://web.archive.org/web/20070214054548/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant . -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be intersting to have a full article on the Hamas Charter. If correct, it seems unusual that the Charter was deleted from Wikisource, there is no copyright on it and Hamas seems to be 'applying' that Charter on a daily basis. Politis (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put this here, as it was inappropriate to a discussion of International law on the other page.

Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters. A Hamas representative in the PA legislative council this year expressed pride on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas) in the fact that women and children are used as human shields in fighting Israel. He described it as part of a "death industry" at which Palestinians excel, and explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life." ^{[4] [5]}

I have a suggested quote addition, to be placed directly after “...Israeli aggression before its implementation.” in the 'End of 2008 Ceasefire' section:

...Israeli aggression before its implementation".^[6] When asked if he could envision a 50-year hudna (cease-fire) with Israel, Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan responded,

The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel. Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God.^[7][8]

Appreciate some feedback. Tell me what you all think. Martin0001 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politis (Talk | contribs) (→End of 2008 Ceasefire: Dlt: interesting quote but irrelevant to this chapter on 2008 ceasefire)

RE: End of 2008 Ceasefire: Dlt: interesting quote but irrelevant to this chapter on 2008 ceasefire

I thought it was interesting too. If not here, where do you think this quote is relevant? since you also think it’s interesting.

In any case, I’d like to hear your reasoning if I may. Why it is irrelevant? It is a direct quote, and it relates directly to ‘End of (the) 2008 Ceasefire’. I think it provides readers with a valuable piece of information regarding Hamas policy, a policy which they were open about from the beginning of the ceasefire. It provides a sound theoretical reasoning behind the collapse of the ceasefire, in addition to noting their perspectives on it. Wikipedia needs to present all the evidence, and this is a reasonable alternate theory to what is mentioned in that section, which focuses on operation Cast Lead and Israeli forces killing Hamas gunmen. Hamas perspectives on the ceasefire need inclusion for balance.

Thanks buddy, get back to me on the Hamas talk page. Off to bed now but I’ll be back in 20 hours.Martin0001 (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there have been many 'hard hitting' quotes generated at the time when the ceasefire ended, as well as many quotes at every phase of this conflict. To include them all at every stage of the article might simply drown the article. That is just my opinion and I feel quite neutral one way or the other to re-intervene. I assume there are many other editors out there who are far more knowledgable than myself.

• By the way, since Hamas is an elected administration responsible for a specific territory, it probably has economic policies, a budget plan, infrastructure priorities...? Just wondering. Politis (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you are “quite neutral one way or the other to re-intervene”, then I would ask that you do, and reintroduce my work. The issue of drowning the article in quotes is separate from the issue of this quote being irrelevant. Moreover, I think the high usage of quotes in this article is a product of the issue being so controversial. Editors are concerned of misleading their readers, so they use a direct quote rather than paraphrasing. How many editors would disagree if I were to include “Hamas officials don’t consider the ceasefire as a true ceasefire. Instead, they have released statements confirming they will use the time to restock weapons in preparation for a final battle with Israel.” I’m not even going to try to rephrase the stuff about God. It’s far too easy to push a POV when rephrasing such things. So even if the article seems over quoted, I’d like to think that both sides of the discussion would prefer to read whole quotes.

As for your concerns regarding selective information in the article, such is a reality in Wikipedia. It seems strange to focus on removing notable and verifiable information from an article, simply because nobody is interested in more holistic researching. You may also find that by including those areas (economic plan, budget, infrastructure), that the article becomes just overwhelmingly negative (e.g. On the 5th of February, 2007, the Hamas government announced its plans for the 2007 budget. The declared intention is to raise the level of personnel on the public payroll. Specifically, 25,000 extras are to be added to the burgeoning "security personnel" payroll. = adapted from [36] website). See what I mean? Martin0001 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon the article "HAMAS(Islamic Resistance Movement)" [[37]] ,There are some nations such as Iran, Syria and Lebanon which belieave that Hamas is a "resistant movement", it is necessary to notice this fact in "Hamas" article.

"Hamas' charter calls for the recapturing of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now named Israel". I think even if their charter says "recapturing", it would be more encyclopedic to say "calls for capturing", because they never held control of the State of Israel. --85.250.205.175 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the sentence "Notorious for its suicide attacks and other attacks..." with "POV-Statement| Wikipedia articles should not claim the notoriety of individuals or groups for acts or characteristics, but rather should describe the specific acts or characteristics and cite the sources verifying those acts or characteristics."

It is an opinion, not a fact, that Hamas is known, well-known, best known, or notorious for its violent acts. The fact that many people hold that opinion and assert it in their writings does not change the opinion in into a fact.

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively.

While "Hamas is known/notorious for its suicide attacks" is not a value statement in the same way that "Tiger Woods is the best golf player in history" is, the most appropriate approach in Wikipedia is similar: let the facts speak for themseleves. We can cite how many attacks Hamas has done and how many casualties resulted, for example.

Another approach is to state who, specifically, holds the opinion that Hamas is best known for its suicide attacks. This means citing a specific person or referring to a survey. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot have its own opinion. It can only cite the opinions of others.

The assertion that Hamas is best known for suicide bombings/attacks is not the only NPOV problem in this article. The fact that it is made as part of the introduction, and the fact that so much material in the article is devoted to Hamas's violence, also constitute an NPOV problem of undue weight. I fully support the tag that has been placed on the article as a whole and hope to see this article cleaned up. PinkWorld (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

I agree with this. People I have spoken to familiar with Palestinians think Hamas is best known for its lack of corruption. It is also know, since the election, for being the legitimate elected government of all the Palestinians. I suggest the currently included opinion about unspecified people's opinion should be replaced with something factual, such as Hamas has organised suicide attacks against civilians as part of its military strategy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been lengthy discussion about this in the past. We are not really concerned with what "people I have spoken to" but rather with what reliable sources say. The article currently has 15 reliable sources that say it is best known or notorious for suicide attacks, so this view appears to be the commonly held one. Is Hamas best known for something else? Are there sources which say so? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that none of the references given are Palestinian or even Arab. I'm happier with the new version - the point being that Hamas is perceived differently in the West and the Arab world, and WP should try and give a neutral (ie non western specific) view. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for that alternative view? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mashaal continued by saying that Hamas believed the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was "exaggerated." "We don't deny the Holocaust, but we believe the Holocaust was exaggerated by the Zionist movement to whip up people," he said. "We don't deny the fact but we don't accept two issues. We don't accept the exaggerating of numbers and we don't accept that Israel uses this to do what it wants." ["Mashaal offers to stop civilian attacks," By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP, The Jerusalem Post, 01 Apr 2008, at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632372365&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull]

Is it possible, though, that claims of exaggeration fall into the category of Holocaust denial? It isn't as if Khalid Mash`al has accepted that the Holocaust ocurred in the way that is normally accepted by mainstream historians. PinkWorld (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

Claims of exaggeration are regarded as Holocaust denial in countries where denial is illegal. Although denial is the correct term, it is probably POV pushing to accuse Hamas of denial without a qualifier as to what exactly they are denying as most readers would assume that it meant denial that it occured at all. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't deny the Holocaust, but we believe the Holocaust was exaggerated by the Zionist movement to whip up people Looks pretty clear that they dont deny it? Just suspicion against "the Zionist movement". — CHANDLER^#10 — 06:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I scroll down the talk section, I see much conversation on this topic. I am writing hear to try and clarify some of this stuff and also to consolidate a bit. So perhaps further discussions on this apparently controversial topic can continue here instead of being spread out across 3 or 4 sections. Note: I have not made a specific edit, the point here is to clarify what is going on so that unnecessary edits are not made.

First, there is a lot of apparent confusion on the word "anti-Semitism" itself. This single web-page [38] shows definitions of the word from a wide variety of sources. Every single one of them specifically defines it as "prejudice against Jews" or something similar. One source notes the definition "hatred of Semites, not in common usage". Some people have said that by referencing this term in an article involving Jews and Arabs (both Semitic peoples), it opens the door for confusion. Wikipedia (English) is designed to be written at a certain level and in a certain style. and since the world is clearly defined in all sources only somebody who did not understand the meaning of the world could be confused. Clearly Wikipedia cannot take responsibility for something like this. Some people suggest the change "anti-Jewish". I think anti-Semitic is the more standard usage, but they do at least mean the same thing. But I must stress this: the change from anti-Semitic to anti-Zionist is simply inaccurate and (to be blunt) the people that support it are most likely POV. A Zionist is a person in favour of the creation/existence of a Jewish state. Not all Jews are Zionists (although most are) and not all Zionists are Jews (in fact, most Zionists are not Jews).So it is clear that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two completely different things. This is especially critical when pragmatically speaking, many people today see anti-Semitism as a form of racism and hence despicable, whereas anti-Zionism might be ok. I think frankly that most people suggesting this change are expressing POV by trying to give Hamas a white wash.

Second, is Hamas anti-Semitic? I'm currently staring at a PDF of Hamas' entire charter. Here's the link: [39]. I recommend you do a search on the word "Jew" and simply read through. For example, the charter specifically mentions "our struggle against the Jews". If Hamas has a struggle against "the Jews", that would indeed qualify it to be an anti-Semitic organization. There are additional references and quotes, which you can work through yourself after you download the document. I think it speaks for itself.

Here is another article, showing that at some point Hamas denied the Holocaust officially on their website: [40]. Holocaust denial is generally considered explicitly anti-Semitic.

I therefore feel that calling Hamas an "anti-Semitic" organization is entirely appropriate and verified. It does not come down whatsoever to observations of third party commentators, and in fact none are necessary because Hamas openly proclaims it by itself. This is not like looking at a lone statement of a member or a momentary vote in their parliament; this is their founding, dedicating document. This document would most appropriately be compared to the Declaration of Independence for a nation. Any nation whose declaration of independence was racist would surely be labeled a racist nation. Note that even calling an organization anti-Semitic does not mean that all its members are anti-Semitic. The United States of 1900 was an explicitly sexist nation, woman couldn't vote (in general). It does not follow that every American male was sexist.

Unless someone can post something doubting the veracity of the above translation, or else seriously goes through that document and claims that its not anti-Semitic (which I doubt is possible) then this issue should be laid to rest.

Nirf (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters gave a couple of sentence of biography on Sa`id Siyam, who was killed today.

Hamas interior minister killed in Israeli air raid Reuters 15 Jan 2009 http://uk.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUKLF77661 [Saeed Seyyam, former Hamas interior minister,] was regarded as a smart leader and an outspoken preacher. Outlining his policies, Seyyam told Reuters in an interview in March 2006: "The day will never come when any Palestinian would be arrested because of his political affiliation or because of resisting the occupation. "On the contrary, the new Hamas regime will seek to better coordinate the Palestinian assault on the Jewish state." PinkWorld (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Pink[reply]

If nobody yet used this term i will introduce it. Lets consider what mean semantic and what mean anti, so antisemnatism is obvious. Now will be two group of people those who say antisemitism and the other more logic who say antisem'antism. Only two letters change but big logical difference. I giving you the correct word on the GPL licence. Hmm tehre is alredy 5700 results in google , anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.228.45 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]