Talk:1988 Hamas charter/Archives/ 1

Zahar quote link

The link to the Zahar quote ( "Hamas Leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar Slams PA President Abbas for "Aimless Kangaroo-Like" Political Gymnastics and Says: We Will Not Relinquish Any Piece of Palestinian Land". Memri TV. Retrieved 22 July2014.) goes nowhere. Since MEMRI is a notably biased source, the quote should be removed until the source is established. Mcdruid (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a "notably biased source". They're highly-selective in what they translate, in a way that some people dislike... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only is MEMRI a notably biased source, the quotation is not to be found at that link. It should be removed unless established reliably. Mcdruid (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a notably biased source, in the sense of deliberately mistranslating. Rather, they annoy people by translating things which those people would prefer to be left untranslated. AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is biased and makes no bones about being biased. The most notable sign is how the headlines of their articles are often contradicted or undercut by the actual content of their articles.

In any event, the link is broken. It should be removed.

Mcdruid (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Come on. Don't be daft. MEMRI is a terrible source. It's an advocacy organization masquerading, in a fairly thinly veiled way, as a non-partisan think tank. And even if it were a credible think tank, almost all think tanks are fairly opinionated sources and even the best of them are still not the best of sources. They are "highly-selective" in the sense of cherrypicking, which is why they are terrible as a source. Good secondary sources don't do this. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hamas position on the Two-State Solution

Why hasn't anyone update this? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders Can someone with access do it? Ras al Ghoul (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "two-state" solution -- it's Hamas being willing to accept 1967 boundaries temporarily, but only recognizing the legitimacy of at most one state. Not sure that Hamas catching up to the 1970s PLO "stages plan" over 40 years later is headline news... AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

ADL

@Drsmoo According to noticeboard: "Some editors commented that ADL is a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics and should be used with caution, if at all."

First comment on talk page and establish consensus before inserting controversial sources. I am not removing that material right now to avoid a (probably not) 1RR. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 7:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

More critically, the "source" is just a press release, so that's not usable. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with using a quote from a named individual in a press release. Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases--Cawhee^Talk 22:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV, Characterization

"Antisemitic canards"

Wikipedia: "The 1988 charter contains references to antisemitic canards, such as the assertion that through shrewd manipulation of imperial countries and secret societies, Jews were behind a wide range of events and disasters going as far back in history as the French Revolution."

Hamas: "With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money, they formed secret societies, such as Freemason, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there."

"— Hamas Charter, Article 22"

--

In the quote given, they don't mention Jews. They mention "Zionist interests". Well who would that be - the Rothschild Barons, who founded Israel after the baron Lionel de Rothschild bought the Suez Canal shares in 1875, through his client and British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Israel's founding document, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, is a letter from Lord Balfour to Baron Walter Rothschild, 2nd Lord Rothschild. And although yes the Rothschild barons are Jewish, they are not 'the Jews', nor are it 'the Jews' who ""With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses," - that would be the Rothschild Barons. They have the ultimate "Zionist interests" mentioned, because they created Israel. Ultimately for the purpose of protecting their geostrategic investment, the Suez Canal, the control of which - with the Strait of Gibraltar and Bab-El-Mendeb - allowed the British Empire to function.

Some examples from primary sources - the Knesset and the Rothschild Archive:

"External debts forced Said Pasha's successor, Isma'il Pasha, to put up his country's shares for sale. In 1875, the London banking house of N M Rothschild & Sons advanced the Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, acting for the British Government, £4million to purchase Suez Canal shares. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild, and according to legend, this was transacted on a gentleman’s agreement, with no documentation, a technically unsecured loan for a sum of several £billion today."

Source: Rothschild Archive, "Lionel de Rothschild and the Suez Canal"

--

"Following the riots in Russia against the Jewish community in 1891–1892, he took part in the actions of the French committee assisting with their migration. His interest in Eretz Yisrael already began during the 1880's, while the first settlements established by Zionists were in severe financial difficulties threatening their continued existence. During 1883–1889, Baron de Rothschild covered all the expenses of Rishon LeZion, Zikhron Yaaqov, Rosh Pinna and Eqron, and donated over 5 million pounds for other settlements. The use of his donations was overseen by hired clerks and specialists, while the Baron himself also visited Eretz Yisrael several times.

"Baron de Rothschild demanded to remain anonymous and he was mostly known as "The known benefactor." His relation to the Zionist movement was ambivalent, while refusing to support Herzl and disagreeing with Hovevei Zion on one hand and gradually becoming involved in the post-First World War efforts of the Paris Peace Conference (1919) and the Balfour Declaration (1917). In 1923 he established PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association) to administrate his lands in Eretz Yisrael, placing his son James as its President."

Source: Knesset, 2015, Baron Edmond James de Rothschild (1845–1934)

--

"In 1924, Rothschild was appointed by his father, Edmond de Rothschild, as President of the “Palestine Jewish Colonization Association” and remained in this post throughout his life. In 1924 he was also elected as Member of the British Parliament, in which he served until 1945. He took an active part in the Parliament’s debates on the White Papers of Passfield (1931) and MacDonald (1939), speaking ill of the failing of the British policy in Eretz Yisrael, and suggested turning it into a British dominion."

"Shortly before his death, Rothschild wrote to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and informed him of his decision to donate 6 million Israeli liras for the construction of a permanent Knesset building. All of the land held by the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association was transferred to the Jewish National Fund."

Source: Knesset, James Armand de Rothschild (1878 – 1957)

--

As for being the funding behind a lot of historic events - well yeah...

Source: The Rothschild Archive, Rothschild Clients https://www.rothschildarchive.org/business/rothschild_clients/

Perhaps most importantly - [to Holy See] or Vatican, a trillion dollar entity.

2001:1C00:1E20:D900:E41D:5620:598D:2C45 (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but what is it you’d like to edit? I think I see what you’re getting at. I personally think there should be a new page for the 2017 charter, and the focus should be on its articles, not the 1988 articles which are sometimes embellished. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

This edit suggests the addition of a third bullet point to the external links section of the page. The only external link to a text of the 2017 charter uses the "hamas.ps" domain, which has unstable service availability and may be subject to internet filters. A secondary external link to the MEE article containing the 2017 charter's full text should be made available directly underneath that bulletpoint as an internet service availability contingency and greater access. Because availability to the full text on the hamas.ps domain was accepted prior to the disruption of that domain, this request should be in line with current consensus on the page.

Also, the existing link pointing to the live hamas.ps page should have an added archive link pointing to the archived hamas.ps domain charter page, or directly to an archived file of the charter. Curlsstars (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Came here to state something similar. Who sees these comments and do they respond? LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

2017 revised covenant

Although the 2017 revision of the covenant is mentioned, most of the article is written as if it doesn't exist. This needs bulk corrective work. The official text is here. Zero^talk 03:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I think this article should be moved to "1988 Hamas Charter" and a new article should be created for 2017 Hamas Charter.VR _talk 16:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems at a bare minimum like we should add the 2017 charter to the “contents” section, ideally above the 1988 contents. BarryBoosta (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I can’t edit because my edit score is too low. I’m trying to figure out how to make suggestions. Who sees these Talk comments? Has anything been done re adding more info about 2017? LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. A summary of the 2017 text should be added, and if this article continues to address both the 1988 and 2017 charters, I think a clarification should be added to the effect of "'Hamas charter' is used to refer to two distinct documents: a 1988 document the group's current leadership has renounced, and an updated charter released in 2017." 74.71.162.63 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

New Charter released in 2017

I have seen others indicate this above, but thought that I'd reiterate here, as I don't have the editing permission to add the relevant information, myself. Hamas released an updated charter in 2017 that differs significantly, in certain areas, from the original 1988 version. Is someone, with the editing permission, able to make the appropriate changes to this article? The 2017 charter text can be found here. Lots of news coverage as well, from CNN, The Guardian, and the BBC. Thanks in advance! Rvandijk101 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Should probably not delete information, but add info concerning the changes. It would be a semi-major project to compare the two versions in detail and write up all significant changes, which is probably why no one at Wikipedia has undertaken the task. It would be best to find a non-Wikipedia reliable source which has already done such comparisons, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm advocating that a subsequent subsection be created with the "Content" section, immediately after "1988 Charter." The new subsection would be titled, "2017 Charter." Certainly, a comparison piece between the two charters would be a larger undertaking, but that's not needed to simply paste in the text of the more recent charter. Just asking if someone would kindly do so, as I don't have the permission to edit this article. Thanks in advance! Robinvandijk101 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Pasting in" the text of the recent charter version (or large subsections of it) would probably be a copyright violation, and if it's not a copyright violation, it might be considered more suitable for Wikisource than Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And similarly, copy and pastes of the 1988 charter is also not suitable.VR _talk 04:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The charter isn't a patented text. There is no copyright violation as it wasn't patented to begin with. It's been copied and shared by journalists in full: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full Chungrob (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we consider whether the article link to the english version of the 2017 charter should link to a version not on the hamas website? I just tried to click through to read it, discovered it looks to be linking to the hamas official website, which did not load. Consider that Hamas may be a terrorist entity in some jurisdictions, and that linking directly to their site may be problematic for that reason. At the same time, the wording of their charter is frequently a topic of news and it's important to be able to know what the text or does not say.PvtGomerPile _talk 08:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This article has extensive coverage of the older 1988 Hamas Charter, but most of the article is written as if the newer 2017 Hamas Charter doesn't exist. 2017 is 29 years after 1988. At a minimum, the first paragraph should link to the 2017 Charter. One could link either to an independent site at middleeasteye.net, or another independent site, or to the Hamas site (optional, and difficult to access), or to all. My simple Google search on "hamas charter 2017" shows the full charter (from middleeasteye.net) as its first link. The lack of a 2017 Charter link on Wikipedia diverges from its policy of neutrality. Gene (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree 100% LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree and someone with edit access needs to address this ASAP 74.71.162.63 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Move Request to make this article "Hamas Charter (1988)" in favor of creating a second article about the 2017 Hamas Charter

Given that the vast majority of this article is about the 1988 charter, and has only a few references to the 2017 charter, I propose moving this article to "Hamas Charter (1988)", and the creation of a "Hamas Charter (2017)". Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Article 22 section is NPOV

I'm not endorsing what the charter says, but the tone is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia and reads like a rant. Many of the other sections describe very offensive claims in neutral, deacriptive terms, without endorsing such claims, so clearly this is possible. 2603:7081:1603:A300:344E:8B5A:4C02:2CC3 (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and while the tropes themselves are fictional and not NPOV, this wikipedia article's summary of them is done in a NPOV and factual fashion, so they still belong. However, to address this concern, I made an edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Hamas_Charter&diff=1186831393&oldid=1186572032 which adds the {{propaganda}} flag at the start of the Hamas Charter#Text of the 1988 charter section to prepare the reader and hyperlinked in article 22 to the specific antisemitic tropes used for readers to understand that these are tropes, like:

sweeping claims about Jewish influence and power.

claims that the Jews were responsible for instigating multiple revolutions and wars,

claims that Jews control the United Nations, Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

Please add the new 2017 charter. here you have a link to it: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full 2A02:810C:C0:D7C:696D:A87F:D54:54DE (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: that is already linked to in the section Hamas_Charter#Revised 2017 Charter and looking over it...it seems pretty long: 42 points each of which is a paragraph, plus a preamble. Copying and pasting that would make this article too long...and would sortof defeat the purpose of wikipedia as an encyclopedia that summaries information into digestible info. Pasting the entire text might be appropriate for https://wikisource.org/, though. Is there another source that maybe provides a short one-sentence summary for each of the 42 points? Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've created https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_Charter which is literally verbatim copied and have added a little Wikisource box, like:

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

2017 Hamas Charter

So I'd say making that wikisource article has sufficiently addressed your concern. Again I don't think should post verbatim the 2017 charter into this wikipedia article...though I still think summary of each point from reputable sources would be useful. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

“1988 Hamas Covenant” & “2017 Revised Hamas Charter”

Hi. I can’t make rev to the “Hamas Charter” page because I don’t have enough edits.

When attempting to have a discussion about the conflict, I’m seeing tons of people share the link to the original 1988 Charter page when asserting “the Hamas charter calls for the genocide of all Jews.” They fail to mention the 2017 revision where almost all (or all?) mention of “ending Jews” was removed and replaced with anti-Israeli nationalist language. Three different users used the HAMAS Charter link just yesterday.

I suggest creating a separate page called “2017 Revised Hamas Charter”. And rename the current page “1988 HAMAS Covenant.”

They aren’t the same, and were written 30 years apart. That way, if a user wishes to counter the assertion that Hamas is explicitly anti-Jew, they can link to a separate stand-alone 2017 entry. Even the Atlantic author, whose pro-Zionist opinion piece is cited at least twice on the page, refers to both as separate documents. I can’t read his entire premise because it sits behind a paywall.

As it stands, the current 1988 page has become an anti-Palestinian propaganda tool. Complicated problem, simple solution. “See, no effort on my part to prove I’m right. It says right here Hamas wants to eradicate all Jews.” An overabundance of anti-Palestine propaganda-adjacent opinion pieces are cited along with lengthy excerpts typed out.

The page continually focuses on the antisemitism of the 1988 document, containing in-depth discussions about the ideology, jihadism, and the antisemitic canards of the 1988 doc. Any discussion of 2017 charter is absent in these sections. All of the 1988 articles are listed; none of the 2017 articles appear. And although there are several links that link directly to the 2017 articles, none are provided. The See Also section does not include a link either. I do not see a link to the 2017 charter anywhere on this page. (take that back; appears as if the very last broken/archived link goes to the Hamas website.)

Edit: I did a Google search for “2017 Hamas Charter.” The first result is:

MIDDLE EAST EYE May 2, 2017 — Hamas in 2017: The document in full. Hamas explains general principles ... Hamas reforms founding charter in bid to end international isolation. Second result is the fore mentioned WP “Hamas Charter” page.

I’m definitely not pro-Hamas, but the 2017 revision is very well-written from a legal perspective and I believe it should be discussed separately and not thrown in with the 1988 document.

I would gladly volunteer my time to make this happen. thanks! LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@LegalResearcherSTL: thanks for the suggestion. Given the later 2017 charter, it would be referred to as simply the "Hamas Charter" (this current article) while the article on the older charter would need the date 1988. Common practice on wikipedia is to drop the year from the title for the most recent revision of a document. For example, the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan is simply called Constitution of Pakistan, while the year is indeed attached to the articles Constitution of Pakistan of 1956 and Constitution of Pakistan of 1962. Likewise, the 2014 Constitution of Egypt is simply called Constitution of Egypt, while the date is attached to the older Egyptian Constitution of 1971. And so on.VR _talk 11:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I wasn’t sure how that was handled.

Does this mean that a new page will be created? LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2017 charter

I've created a summary of the 2017 charter and I'm going to put it here for feedback before I add it to the article. I tried my best to capture each article's intent as neutrally as possible without regurgiating the language of the writers.

The summary is based off of the official translation [here|https://web.archive.org/web/20170505081211/http://hamas.ps/en/post/678].

Below is the summary that I am proposing be included.

   * Article 1 describes Hamas as an Islamic Palestinian resistance movement aimed at liberating Palestine and confronting Israeli nationalist, with Islam as its frame of reference.  

   * Article 2 states that Palestine extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and is the land of the Palestinian Arab people, while Israeli nationalist does not negate Palestinian rights.

   * Article 3 describes Palestine as holding special status as an Arab and Islamic land, especially Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.  

   * Article 4 describes Palestinians as those who lived in Palestine until 1947 plus their descendants, wherever they live.

   * Article 5 states that the Palestinian identity is timeless, passed through generations, and not erased by exile or acquiring citizenships.  

   * Article 6 states that Palestinians worldwide comprise one people irrespective of religion or ideology.

   * Article 7 describes Palestine as central to the Muslim world given its religious significance.  

   * Article 8 describes Islam as providing a balanced way of life fitting for all places and times.

   * Article 9 describes Islam as opposing injustice while upholding human rights and motivating resistance.   

   * Article 10 states that Jerusalem in its entirety is the capital of Palestine, especially the holy sites. 

   * Article 11 states that Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs solely to Palestinians/Muslims; Israeli actions there are null and void.   

   * Article 12 describes the Palestinian right of return as natural, legal, and inalienable.  

   * Article 13 states compensation for refugees is mandated and does not negate their return.

   * Article 14 describes the Israeli nationalist project as aiming to control Palestinian land while threatening regional security.   

   * Article 15 states Israeli nationalist endangers the entire Arab/Muslim nation beyond just Palestinians.  

   * Article 16 states Hamas fights the occupation but not Jews over religion, while Israeli nationalist has conflated with Judaism.   

   * Article 17 rejects violence against groups over religion/race, stating Israeli nationalist does not represent Judaism inherently.  

   * Article 18 states Israeli nationalist founding documents lack legal/moral authority and Israel's creation is entirely illegal.  

   * Article 19 states Israeli nationalist actions in Palestine cannot confer legitimacy on Israel.   

   * Article 20 rejects any concession of Palestinian lands or rights in favor of total liberation.  

   * Article 21 states Oslo agreements violate Palestinian rights; Hamas rejects them.  

   * Article 22 rejects all initiatives undermining Palestinian rights and the Palestinian cause.   

   * Article 23 states "peace" compromising Palestinian rights is unacceptable; resistance remains legitimate.  

   * Article 24 describes Palestine's liberation as a pan-Arab/Islamic/global duty that groups should unite around, not conflict over.   

   * Article 25 states armed resistance is an enshrined right for Palestinians.

   * Article 26 states developing resistance methods is integral and should not compromise resistance itself.   

   * Article 27 states true Palestinian statehood requires full sovereignty over 1967 lands including Jerusalem.  

   * Article 28 describes Hamas pursuing pluralistic democratic partnerships with Palestinian groups to achieve national goals.  

   * Article 29 describes the PLO as the umbrella Palestinian group that must reform democratically.  

   * Article 30 states Palestinian institutions must be built on democratic principles adhering to Palestinian rights and goals.  

   * Article 31 states the PLO serves the people while the PA safeguards Palestinian rights, security and national aims.   

   * Article 32 states Palestinian decision-making must stay independent while Arabs/Muslims have a duty to support Palestine's liberation.  

   * Article 33 describes civil society groups complementing each other to achieve liberation.   

   * Article 34 describes an indispensable role for Palestinian women in resistance and nation-building.  

   * Article 35 states the Palestinian issue is central to the Arab/Muslim nation.  

   * Article 36 states the Muslim Ummah must avoid fragmentation and unify, despite diversity.   

   * Article 37 describes Hamas cooperating with states supporting Palestinian rights while avoiding interfering in other states.  

   * Article 38 states the legal/humanitarian dimensions make Palestine a global cause.  

   * Article 39 describes armed struggle to liberate Palestine as fitting self-defense and self-determination rights.   

   * Article 40 welcomes diverse global support for Palestinian rights while denouncing Israeli crimes.  

   * Article 41 rejects hegemony over any nation, in Palestine or worldwide.  

   * Article 42 condemns oppression, occupation, and aggression globally.

I have extended confirmed permissions but a change this large should be done with consensus, in my opinion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure on whether or not this actually needs to be included but it seems strange to me that the article would include a summary of the original charter and not the revised one. I'm also opposed to including the entire 2017 charter here for a number of reasons but chief among them is if someone wants to read the charter, they can absolutely look it up. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

New article for 2017 charter

@Jayen466 has decided to create A Document of General Principles and Policies for the 2017 charter effectively splitting this article and that article into two distinct articles. While I would have appreciated some consensus building before this happened, it appears it is done now. Now we're left with whether or not the Hamas Charter article should include detailed summaries of the first charter without including detailed summaries of the second. Would really appreciate discussion on this. As it stands I currently find splitting the articles up to be confusing to readers. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, a rewrite to make the Hamas Charter page clearly about the original charter and A Document of General Principles and Policies clearly about the 2017 revised charter would fix this! Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Is that the commonname? It's not very informative for a title. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to A Document of General Principles and Policies? Honestly that one could probably be renamed to A Document of General Principles and Policies (2017 Hamas Charter) to make it more descriptive. As for the article at Hamas Charter I think if we decide to focus it on the old charter then a rename would also be needed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

2017 Hamas Charter redirects to A Document of General Principles and Policies already. Per WP:CONCISE I think 2017 Hamas Charter is a better fit for that article. Then we're still left with what Hamas Charter should be called. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

1988 Hamas charter? Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point! Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think 2017 Hamas Charter is a much better wikipedia title too. "A Document of General Principles and Policies" is simply the name on the document but is not useful outside of the context of the document.

And so first charter should be renamed like 1988 Hamas Charter. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think anyone will be searching for the title of the document to find it. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yea, small c, right? Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, per MOS:TITLECAPS. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

right. BTW, someone made the link 1917_Hamas_charter but that is the wrong century! Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, that's done, anyone object to moving this page to 1988 Hamas charter? Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier you accidentally moved it to 1917 Hamas charter... Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ops, fixed, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to it, but given the content of the article moving it now may cause confusion about the subject of the article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hum, Is there anything in this article that is not in the other? If not then we can just strip out the 2017 related from this one and leave a summary + wikilink.(When I search WP for Hamas charter, this one comes up first and the other a few down. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think a move is fine now. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I say please rename to 1988 Hamas charter now while we're at it. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the 2017 charter did not replace the 1988 charter, so it isn't really a new charter, it is just what it is: A Document of General Principles and Policies, sitting there alongside the historical document that is the 1988 charter. Many people are careful to say something like "the document could be considered Hamas’s new charter" (Hroub); Legrain says "By designating its text as a “wathîqa” (document), Hamas refers somewhere to its 1988 “mîthâq” (Charter) even if linguistically the wathîqa is supposed to be less binding and fixed" ... long story short, actually calling it the "new charter" isn't quite in line with the scholarly sources that maintain and discuss the distinctions (though it's a good redirect). Andreas JN466 17:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, I think having distinct articles isn't really placing a significance on which version is binding though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but you might get some people arguing there has only ever been one charter: the 1988 one. And that by calling the 2017 one a charter readers will be made to think that it's a straight replacement of the 1988 charter by the 2017 one. Andreas JN466 18:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It has to be named something though and calling it A Document of General Principles and Policies is not useful plus not many are going to search for that, they will search for Hamas charter most likely and both will come up, pick one. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And linking to the other page on each page will suffice. you can even acknowledge that some people don't consider the 2017 one a true charter if you can find sources for it @Jayen466. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, moved, if it is reverted, then it will need an RM. Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the 1988 document translations call itself a "covenant", which is more like an agreement, not "charter" anyway. And it is not like there is some formal sovereign organization that legally "chartered" the organization and that cares if the organization didn't properly follow the proper procedures for revising its "charter". But the documents are spoken of as a "charter" and a "revised charter", so by WP:COMMONNAME then 1988 Hamas charter and 2017 Hamas charter seems ok. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Arabic version?

I can't seem to find an Arabic version of the 1988 document online. It would at least be useful to add the arabic title of the document to this article's first sentence. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Source 47 does not exist and that analysis is biased. Deleted that part that does not have a source. Deleted

"The original, 1988 version of the charter emphasize four main themes:[47]

Destroying Israel and establishing an Islamic theocracy in Palestine is essential;[47] Unrestrained jihad is necessary to achieve this;[47] Negotiated resolutions of Jewish and Palestinian claims to the land are unacceptable;[47] Historical anti-semitic tropes that reinforce the goals.[47]" Zanananic (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Source 47 exists. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

1988 charter vs later documents

On 11 December, 21:48, I removed sentence three from section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’ (“However … the "new" discourse … reflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas.”). It referred only to source Kh.Hroub in Journal of P.Studies summer 2006, which source I had read (indeed) and appeared to me as (mainly) arguing that the Hamas electoral program of March 2005 and government program in March 2006 showed more “pragmatism and flexibility” and less “Islam” than the 1988 charter did. Even if we accept that statement and analysis of K.Hroub as true and correct, the statement does not imply that the charter had become less relevant in the Hamas movement – simply because a Charter embodies a different function within a movement than an electoral or a governmental program. Therefore, I (with motivation) removed the sentence from the section because Hroub’s statement/analysis did not (explicitly) imply any change in importance of the charter. That edit of mine was directly reverted, by colleague (12 Dec 17:08) (who misrepresented my given motivation for it).

Some editor somewhen has (in our section “Relevance…”) wanted to ‘summarize’ that summer 2006 analysis of Hroub as: “…genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas”. I’m not sure whether these are the (summarizing) words of Hroub or of a Wiki editor, but in either case they don’t seem to alter my conclusion that the whole 2006 article of Hroub does not show or argue that the Charter had become less relevant in the Hamas movement; therefore, I’d still say, Hroub’s 2006 article deserves no place in section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’ (or whatever name we give to that section). (Editor reverted my removal without reacting on my given motivation for it, what doesn’t strike me as a highly constructive manner of cooperating.) Surely, taking up government responsibility (as Hamas did in 2006) is a major or “cumulative” (and “genuine”) change, but ‘changes’ can occur on very many aspects and the mere assertion that ‘great changes’ took place within Hamas therefore does not automatically imply that those ‘changes’ pertained to the relevance of its charter (what therefore, indeed, is also not what Hroub states in his 2006 argument, as far as I can see). Therefore, whatever (else) Hroub is saying or arguing in 2006, it can surely be relevant for other sections in our Wiki article but to my opinion, clearly stated and argued on 11 December, (apparenty) not for section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This sentence in the source does seem to be saying that Hamas has evolved since its 1988 charter (until 2006, the year the source was published):

Since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, its political positions as presented in the Western media hark back to its 1988 charter, with almost no reference to its considerable evolution under the impact of political developments...

VR _talk 17:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There's more from the source. Its clear the source is saying Hamas's position evolved considerably from the charter:

Yet when the election and postelection documents are compared to the [1988] charter, it becomes clear that what is being promoted is a profoundly different organization.

And

At the same time, taken as a whole, the thrust of these articles—and the entire document—hovers around the concept of the two-state solution without a hint of the “liberation of the entire land of Palestine” or “the destruction of Israel” found in the charter. Except for article 2 upholding the refugees’ right of return, all references in the document are to territories occupied in 1967 (the West Bank, Jordan Valley, “Apartheid wall,” and so on); article 4 regarding resistance proclaims it as a “legitimate right to end the occupation” (emphasis added). The specific mention in article 5 of “complete withdrawal from the lands occupied in 1967” (emphasis added) clearly implies a two-state solution, while the reference in article 10 to international resolutions and in article 3 to the need to “activate the resolution of the International Court of Justice [against the wall]” both show at least implicit recognition of the legitimacy of international law and mechanisms.

You don't agree that the author is arguing that Hamas's 2006 proposal for a national unity government dropped the whole "destruction of Israel" thing?VR _talk 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hroub is quoted by Floor Janssen who writes "According to Khaled Hroub, an expert on Arab politics and the author of several studies on Hamas...the sophisticated language Hamas used after its electoral victory in 2006 proves that the Charter is rather obsolete and no longer functions as the movement’s intellectual platform". Janssen also has other insights:

• "As a result, contrary to Hamas’s early documents [ mainly the 1988 Charter], in the documents we have selected for the second phase [1993-2000] we found no references to the enemy using the term ‘Jews’."
• "we found that Hamas cautiously introduced its positions on a peaceful solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ] throughout the documents we selected for the second phase [1993-2000]"
• "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.... It is impossible to ignore the fact that certain aspects we found in Hamas’s early documents have completely disappeared in later documents, while other aspects underwent serious alterations. Our analysis indicates that Hamas has demonstrated an ability to change its positions on fundamental issues such as Israel over time."

VR _talk 05:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

( @VR: I'm busy pondering your comments. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) )

I’ve started this talk section to explain, more thoroughly than possible in the ‘edit summary’, why a sentence/statement in section ‘Relevance in the 21st century’, purportedly based on source Hroub(2006), had to be removed from that section. Vice regent reacted on that talk(15+16 Dec), which is alright, but he also changed the title of the talk section(16Dec), which is questionable because his chosen new title: ‘1988 charter vs later documents’ suggests an incompatibility, competition, ‘conflict’ between that charter and certain later documents. I’ve argued here on 15 Dec that a Charter and an electoral program fulfill different functions for a movement, therefore can exist next to each other, have different content, different ‘tone’ etc. without causing, presenting, some sort of incompatibility-problem (as long as very explicit contradictions between those texts aren’t signalled). The renaming (by VR) of this talk section is in itself (again) a covert attempt to suggest/insinuate such an ‘incompatibility’ between the 1988Charter and some later texts, but I can’t find Vice regent’s arguments for that suggestion.

Then, as to @Vice regent: (VR)’s more explicit comments, on 15+16 Dec in three episodes. (17:50:) Some sentence in an article of 2006 from Kh.Hroub “seems”(!) to be saying that Hamas “has evolved” … So what? ‘Evolving’ is the most logical and trivial thing any organisation does, through time. It is not the task of Wikipedia to mention totally trivial things in our articles; besides, you don’t even tell us in which article you would want to place this (trivial, vague) information, and why. Evolving is not necessarily the same as throwing a 1988 charter out the window.
(17:58, first:) Hroub contends, that, in the 2006 Hamas documents, “a profoundly different organization” is being promoted, as compared to the 1988 charter. First of all, this is vague and ambiguous, for two reasons: (1) the word ‘organization’ has two possible meanings; (2) in what sense ‘profoundly different’? We can’t start to write such (solemnly phrased) vague contentions in our articles like this (vague, pompous) ‘profoundly different…’
(17:58, second:) Author Hroub, according to VR, argues that Hamas, in its 2006 draft National Unity Government Program, “dropped the whole ‘destruction of Israel’ thing”? No: Hroub does not argue that, he only suggests that. By writing that the drNUGP contains ‘not a hint of the…destruction-of-Israel thing’ which indeed is mentioned in its charter, Hroub suggests (but doesn’t say nor argue) that Hamas is no longer after that destruction. Such mere suggestion is, to my opinion, not encyclopedically relevant for us. Wikipedia is meant to present (clear) facts to our readers; mere suggestions can perhaps(!) be encyclopedically relevant for Wikipedia if they come from very powerful or influential people (say, Presidents, popes, etc.); but Hroub is only a Palestinian academic, writing a (partly propagandist) article in Journal of Palestine Studies, (partly arguing and partly) suggesting that Hamas has become harmless (for Israel) and that therefore the US and its ‘vassal states’ (Canada, EU) should resume their financial aid to the P.A..
(16Dec05:23, first:) Fl.Janssen writes: ‘according to Hroub,… Charter is rather obsolete…’. No, that is not what Hroub writes. And I have no idea who this Janssen is. If an unknown (and unrenowned) person should write that the sun has stopped revolving, there would be no reason for Wikipedia to make any mention of that.
(second:) This same Janssen apparently has done some analyses on Hamas documents. We cannot preclude that such analyses might be relevant for some Wiki article, provided we know who this Janssen is, why and when he made such analyses, and you give us your motivation why you want to include that information in a certain (which?) Wiki article. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your above argument boils down to your own WP:OR analysis of why you think the sources are wrong. No one is saying we would state these scholars in wiki voice but we should state them with attribution. If you think these sources are unreliable I'm happy to take this to WP:RSN.

And I changed the section title because your title was way to long, but feel free to change it back. VR _talk 17:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)