Talk:Hamas/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 29

Should "Anti-communist" be listed as a Hamas ideology?

The charter explicitly blames Jews for the "communist revolution" which would imply opposition to communism. I believe the reason "anti-communism" has been removed from the "ideologies" section is because of communists that support Hamas. I could not think of any other way to phrase that, I am sorry if what I said sounds conspiratorial NesserWiki (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• is because of some communist support* is what I meant to say.

NesserWiki (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have secondary sources supporting this assertion? Basing it solely on the charter would be considered WP:OR. I am not sure this is a primary focus of Hamas ideology. Marokwitz (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick search in my Hamas-related PDFs, and it seems to me that any anti-communist tinge they have can be subsumed into either their anti-Zionism or their Islamism. They consider communism a form of atheism (and, as Islamists, they are obviously anti-atheists), and their 1988 charter, according to Filiu in Gaza: A History: "is steeped in conspiratorial language according to which international Zionism’s historic links with freemasonry enabled it to manipulate ‘the French revolution, the communist revolution and most other revolutionary upheavals’." (p. 204). And they rhetorically attack political opponents for being communists. So, I don't know... it doesn't seem to me like a defining ideology. They certainly are not pro-communist, but they also are not spending a whole lot of energy on opposing communism. --Orgullomoore (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream political groups everywhere are rarely pro-communist. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but anti communism is an ideology within itself HoopaRoopa (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Which goes hand in hand with "nationalism", which no one would argue hamas is not nationalist. Really before this 2023 nakba, no one had a problem describing hamas as anti-communist before, but now that is taken out to distance anti-communist governments from their less formally composed counterparts. Jester6482 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"I believe the reason "anti-communism" has been removed from the "ideologies" section is because of communists that support Hamas" reads to me like an admission that we prefer the reader to just assume hamas is communist like all of the west's other bad guys; it would be strange to assume otherwise, yet hamas is in fact anti-communist as explicitly stated in their charter multiple times so it doesn't seem honest to cover that up.

We want to leave that up in the air for reasons I don't feel like being charitable about. It's pretty obvious that after the 2023 nakba started and this page got more traffic, that was removed so that the reader can make the logical leap from "communists, socialists, and other leftists support Palestine" > "hamas is the Palestinian government" > "leftists and communists must therefore support hamas" > "hamas may as well be communist themselves, we no longer feel like admitting that they are anti-communist, only the good guys are ever 'anti-communist' ". Extremely dishonest and it's infuriating editors will just allow changes like this that leave more room for people to develop vague, malformed pictures of these organizations' ideologies. Jester6482 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Russia

I've reverted adding Russia as an ally. The two sources that were provided do not establish this to the necessary degree of certainty

Kyivpost article quotes Khaled Mashal's words and does not say it in its own voice

“ Hamas relies on the support of its allies, including major powers such as Russia and China, Mashal stated in an interview with an Egyptian TV channel. ”

In fact, or at least according to MEMRI, whose tweet Kyivpost links to, and whose translations are usually accurate, Mashal doesn't say that Russia or China are his allies.

Yahoo news article only talks about allies in the last paragraph.

“ Whose ally is Israel? The United States of America," one Russian official and member of the defense committee, Andrei Gurulev, posted on Telegram, per the Journal. "Whose ally is Iran and its surrounding Muslim world? Ours. ”

So should we declare every single Muslim country an ally of Russia based on a post of an obscure member of Russian parliament? Alaexis_¿question? 21:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever, should be consistent with Russia–Hamas relations. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede

No prominent mention of music festival in article; neither of Biden or EU motions; nor of the third information. Lede is a summary of body; not a collection of cherry picked information. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edit, I see it removed the following two parts:

Since then, it has run Gaza as a de facto autocratic and one-party state.

The European Parliament passed a motion stating the need for Hamas to be eliminated and US President Joe Biden has expressed the same sentiment.

Where are these mentioned in the text? (i.e.: what is it a summary of?) Tal Galili (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have restored

Since then, it has run Gaza as an autocratic and one-party state.

but removed “de facto” which I think is what is generating controversy/edit warring. Yes, Hamas has killed “its political rivals execution style in the streets, in hospital shootouts, and by throwing them off the rooftops of high-rise buildings.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/israel-hamas/2023/11/21/gaza-hamas-palestinians-views-government-israel-war/71589840007/

but at the end of the day they were voted in winning parliamentary majority. Because they were voted in, I think that is why some editors are objecting to the words de facto. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't the vote in 2006? It's ~17 years now with no election. If this is considered a democracy, I suspect it is contesting for the democracy with the longest streak of years with no election. Tal Galili (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hm.. good point. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I must be honest. I find that mentioning the most "successful" single terror attack by the organization as lead worthy. I also find that if the President of the United States of America and the European Union call for the elimination of an organization; it too is very lead worthy. Indeed you have pointed an important issue.

The true issue is not that it is not Lead worthy, but that more information regarding this is not included in the body! Indeed I find this can be an important avenue and I think it's good you've pointed the issue.

Regarding Re'im festival, please note Al-Qaeda's lead:

"In 2001, Al-Qaeda carried out the September 11 attacks, resulting in nearly 3,000 deaths..."

It is worth mentioning Re'im which was Hamas' most single most successful attack.

Furthermore, the t the nature of governance of a political organization on its ruled territory is lead worthy.

However the issue stands the same. That it is vital that we mention that a country considered the most powerful on Earth has called to destroy this organization and that the European Union, a body representing about 500,000,000 has also called the same on this organization. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat

I agree with both of your points. But regardless of how the discussion about the lead would end - I think it's worth adding these inputs into the body of the article as well (I don't plan to work on it - but if you will - you have my blessing). Tal Galili (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What precisely is being discussed or proposed here? It appears there are a few potential points of discussion about the lede, which have themselves branched off from previous discussions. At risk of creating a series of subsequent branches ad infinitum, wouldn’t it be most helpful to start specific RfCs on the key issues, one by one? Yr Enw (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would a EU resolution be in the lead of the article? It isnt even referenced at all in the body. That is an absurd amount of undue weight. Do we mention the UN resolutions about Israel in its lead? Even the lead as it currently stands is absurdly tilted towards 2023, as though October 7th is the sole defining trait about Hamas. Do we include Israel bombing refugee camps in its lead? Its unreal how people are trying to tilt this article. nableezy - 17:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you think the Oct 7th attack should be included in the lead? If so, which details of it do you think are most relevant to include? Tal Galili (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes it should be and as it is now is imo fine. nableezy - 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy -

Given that the article of [attack] states that "Hamas meticulously planned for a massacre of Israeli civilians with the goal of provoking Israel to invade Gaza."

Then would you agree that this was a terrorist attack?

E.g., instead of writing:

The attack has been described as the biggest military setback for Israel since the 1973 Arab–Israeli War.

Write:

The terrorist attack has been described as the biggest military setback for Israel since the 1973 Arab–Israeli War.

Using the wiki voice? Tal Galili (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Its a terror attack, not a terrorist attack, a terrorist is a person who commits terrorism, which is an act of terror. And I dont think thats a good sentence in that article. I would rather say The attack, which included killing scores of civilians in Israeli territory near Gaza, has been described as the biggest military setback for Israel since the 1973 Arab–Israeli War. I get that doesnt include the word "terror" and if thats big a deal we can include it somehow, but I also think it is much better writing in that it says what happened instead of trying to get some buzzword in to as many sentences as possible. nableezy - 20:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy - I want to avoid buzzwords, they do not add in my view. At the same time, I also want it that when intention is known and clear, to make it clear in the text. The way the sentence you wrote reads is that Hamas did some attack, and it just happened to include the killing of civilians. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the attack of civilians was planned and intentional (and celebrated) - and I think the wording should reflect that. WDYT? Tal Galili (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Just happened to include? No it says directly they killed scores of civilians during the attack. I did not also add they attacked military bases and captured soldiers, though that was also part of the attack. But I think my wording does reflect intentionality. nableezy - 20:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure killing is a strong enough word for me. It seems more like a massacre sort of situation. But I don't see value in discussing this much here.how about massacring instead of killing? Tal Galili (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would strongly oppose using the term "terror/terrorist attack" in Wikivoice. It adds nothing and gets us bogged down in labels rather than improving the lede. Yr Enw (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

But isn't it what it is? It was an attack meant to incite terror and lead to war. Is there an alternative narrative for the motivation of the attack? (Even from Hamas's side) Tal Galili (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:OR and MOS:TERRORIST, it’s not up to us as editors to determine what is or isn’t a terror attack, or what labels to use. If the sources use them, then yes we can say it with attribution. But otherwise, in my opinion, highly contentious terms like that just bog us down in discussions and should be avoided. Yr Enw (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree with this sentiment. What I'm asking is if there are credible sources which did not deem this to be a terror attack? what did they say it was? Tal Galili (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Most media sources use the term “terror attack” and so yes, there’s an argument to be made for using the term, just attributed rather than in Wikivoice. I think the way it’s currently formatted is better though, attacking military and civilian targets is more descriptive, whereas “terror” is a bit ambiguous. Yr Enw (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In September 11 attacks the attack is described as a terrorist attack. The term seems to be less ambiguous than just calling it an attack. Tal Galili (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The European Union, a 18.5 trillion USD bloc, 500 million people, with a Nuclear armed country, with some of the most powerful militaries in the world, a block that is geographically close to the Gaza Strip did a resolution saying that Hamas should be eliminated. Not lead worthy? Homerethegreat (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It feels more like news reporting than encyclopedic narrative. In any case, it needs to be in the body in order for it to be in the lede. Yr Enw (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yr Enw, Is that the only barrier to it being in the lead? Homerethegreat (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yr Enw I agree with you. Tal Galili (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It is true that the EU and the US have insisted that Hamas is not involved in post Gaza war rule. They are also insisting that there be a political horizon for Palestine at the same time. Including the first half but not the second is POV. I can see another editor has added "massacred" to the article, will it be OK to add massacred for all the Gaza civilians killed at the Israel article? Or is it only Israeli citizens that can be massacred? Selfstudier (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

i think massacred has to do with intention.

AFAIK the IDF doesn't say it wants to kill palastenians. Does Hamas say it doesn't want to kill Israeli civilians? Tal Galili (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No genocide has to do with intention. Massacre is usually used when a killing was particularly bloody or violent “under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty”. That is the primary dictionary definition although there are also secondary and tertiary definitions for massacre. I agree with Selfstudier that massacre should not be used in the lead. This is a page about Hamas not the Oct. 7 attack or the 2023 war. We don’t need to be reminded of what they did on that day, there are plenty of other things you could write about them some positive some negative. Massacre in the lead is very distracting, detracts from the neutral quality of a page about a political militant entity and it currently isn’t even mentioned in the Wiki page for the 2023 Israel Hamas war. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying, massacre not currently mentioned in the lead of the 2023 Israel Hamas war wiki page. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Where them do you think Re'im music festival massacre should be placed then?

If it's part of the 2023 war, then that description should include that a massacre occured. If it shouldn't, then the incident should be mentioned on its own.

I believe, in general, that if an organisation is responsible for a massacre, that mentioning it is lead worthy. And also that not mentioning it is failing the goal of a NPOV.

In general, I feel that we can't have it both ways: if Hamas is a terror organisation then we don't need the lead to include every terrible thing they did. But they are not called that in the lead. Hence, if they are simply a "militant group" (i.e.: not engaging in war crimes etc. on a regular basis), then I'd argue that having them be responsible for a massacre is so unbelievable that it should be mentioned in the lead.

For reference, I'm not aware of cases in which the IDF has conducted massacres (e.g.: went into a music festival and had soldiers shot people while they ran away for their lives. And were they to do it, I'd find it remarkable that it would not be mentioned in their lead as well) Tal Galili (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, at least on Wiki, there was the Khan Yunis massacre. :’( I only learned about it here a month ago! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You feel that way only for Hamas or also for Israel, the IDF, the Hagannah, ... ? Qibya massacre, 1984 Sohmor massacre, Kafr Qasim massacre, Rafah massacre, Ras Sedr massacre, Hula massacre, there wont be room for much else in the lead of Israel. nableezy - 03:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Nableezy? I don't understand your question. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see you edited and expanded your response. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Was a question to Tal Galili, you can tell by the indentation. nableezy - 03:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy - do you want to know what I feel or what I think?

I feel that I have respect and care for all human beings, be them Jewish, Muslim, or atheists (as myself). And that all the suffering that we are discussing here is heartbreaking, regardless of sides.

As for what I think:

I think Hahganah (from what I know) focused on fighting "British authorities", and were not designated as a terrorist organization by anyone (if I'm wrong, it should be included in the wiki page).

In contrast, Irgun (which was later absorbed by IDF), did perform terrorist attacks, and it is indeed mentioned in the first paragraph there of the lead:

"The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts."

As for Israel - the lead's first sentence doesn't indicate the "occupation" of Gaza, although that's written in detail in the third paragraph. When I compare this to other countries, it seems similar. For example, [Russia]] doesn't have the first sentence in the lead an indication of their war in ukraine (although down several paragraphs it does).

But to the core of your question - I don't think IDF is designated as a terror organization by anyone. Also, I don't think it is mandated (by the Israeli government) to kill civilians in any way that is outside of international law. I do agree with you that the cases you mentioned are terrible, should not have happened, and should be condemned. But I think the bigger question is if these are inherent to the IDFs operation in general, or if these are unusual (terrible) things that happened - that do not define the IDF as a whole.

IF Hamas were to generally fight the Israeli military, and would by accident heart civilians, then I wouldn't think that discussing it in the lead is essential. But Hamas has killed it's opposition members after they got into power, they have refused to allow democratic elections in the past 17 years (since 2006), they regularly fire rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities (with the clear purpose of harming civilians). And when they made their incursions and got into the music festival, they had the rare opportunity to show they are against Israel as a country and not against Israelis and Jew People. They could have decided to make an effort to not kill these people, but instead they did. Including elderly and children.

I don't see here an unusual case of their actions, but an example of what happens when they manage to do what they want to do all the time.

Hence, their actions should be described not as killing civilians, but as a massacre. Their strategy of terror should be mentioned in the lead in general (which it is). And I further think that it should be mentioned in the first paragraph (but that's a discussion to have in another place).

And I'd like to finish and say that I clearly loath Hamas. But at the same time please know that I LOVE Wikipedia. And my purpose here is not to spew buzzwords to describe Hamas, but to give them the most neutral and accurate description possible. Tal Galili (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No, we really dont discuss our feelings here. But the point I was trying to make was you wrote if an organization committed a massacre that massacre should be in the lead. We dont discuss My Lai massacre in either the lead or the body of United States Army, much less United States, we dont discuss any of the massacres committed by the IDF, the Border Police, or whoever in the leads of those articles, in the IDF article not in the body either, though the Border Police one includes a bit on Kafr Qasim, though it says "was involved in" instead of "carried out". My point was that if your belief on including massacres that a state or organization committed in the lead were to be implemented without bias it would fill up the leads of most of the country articles we have. Going back to say Irgun, as you say it says The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts. This article's lead is actually very poorly written, but it does include Hamas has attacked civilians in Israel, including with suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks – acts that have led many countries to designate Hamas a terrorist organization. nableezy - 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I think there are several points here:

1. I think that whenever possible, each article should include a relevant criticism section. That should be the case for the US army, IDF, and whichever other entity in the world. I believe this type of transparency is good (e.g.: I wasn't aware of all the articles you mentioned, which is a shame).

2. I agree that the criticism of an organization should not always be in the lead. But,

3. For some cases, the criticisms of organizations are an important part of the information around them. How should that be decided? That's a great question (which is the one we're discussing here). In the case of Hamas and the events of Oct 7th, I think it's a big deal which will be a major part of Hamas's story. So I think it deserves to be in the lead. Also, the fact that many countries designate it as a terrorist organization is, IMHO, a big part of Hamas's story, and should be in the lead. It is already there, and I personally think it should be there - and also that it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. But that last point we don't need to discuss here (I'll open another thread on it when I get to it). Tal Galili (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel is a country, Hamas is an organization. I would not expect Iran to have on its lead its biggest attack. Al Qaeda mentions 9/10. Why should Hamas' not mention 7/10? Homerethegreat (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We need to be clear that Hamas is not a country so regarding consistency it should be compared to other organizations that are similar to it and their lead. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though? Al-Qai'dah's notability is in large part due to its involvement in 9/11, whereas I'm not sure we can honestly say Hamas's notability arises from the 7/10 attack. The prominence of 9/11 in sources about AQ far outweighs the prominence of 7/10 in sources about Hamas. It might change as more scholarly analysis is dedicated to the impact of October 7, but it's not the case yet and thus doesn't - in my eyes - justify the inclusion in the lede. It's a bit too close to WP:RECENTISM. Yr Enw (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Examples of organizations that are comparable to Hamas include Hezbollah, Palestine Liberation Organization, African National Congress etc. All of them only very briefly mention allegations of terrorism in the lead. VR _talk 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No lol, a resolution by the European parliament is not lead worthy. nableezy - 20:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy I agree with you. Tal Galili (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The US and the EU are some of the most powerful blocs on Earth. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So what? An EU parliament resolution is meaningless, so is a statement by a US president. There is no indication that any of the crap youre trying to put in here has any weight in sources at all. nableezy - 01:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• It has been officially designated as a "terrorist group" in 8 major countries. Should an organization, which is widely known as a terror/terrorism organization, be described as such in the lead? Yes, it should. It is another matter if Hamas should be described as a primarily terrorist organization. Yes, it is widely known for conducting the multiple massacres of civilians. But perhaps they do a lot of other things that are more important? Good balance here can be found by using strong tertiary sources, as I already noted on this page above [2], except that the coverage of Hamas has recently been changed due to all these massacres they just conducted in Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Important to note Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Recentism. Hamas is not primarily a militant organization, and it's political and social aspects are just as important as it's militant aspects. VR _talk 00:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2023 (2)

Please add these lines back in:

In 1973, Yassin founded the social-religious charity al-Mujama al-Islamiya (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mujama_al-Islamiya) ("Islamic center") in Gaza as an offshoot to the Muslim Brotherhood.[161][162] The Israeli authorities encouraged Yassin's charity to expand as they saw it as a useful counterbalance to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization).[144][163][164][165] Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor of Gaza at the time, recalled that they even funded his charity: "The Israeli government gave me a budget, and the military government gives to the mosques".[166] Israel's religious affairs official in Gaza, Avner Cohen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avner_Cohen), later regretfully concluded that Hamas was created by Israel. He claimed to have warne d his superiors not to back the Islamists. Israel's early support to Hamas came from its desire to alienate its secular rival, the Palestine Liberation Organization. [167]

This has now been changed to remove IMPORTANT CONTEXT 2603:7000:37F0:6C00:4D64:4423:A6B0:F99B (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Start" of the war

The removed comment admittedly didn't make any very actionable suggestions, but raised somewhat valid concerns with the last "History" sub-sub-section "2023 Israel–Hamas war" and a few other sections. Irtapil (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The 1980s were very different

Somebody removed a key early ally, but I think they possibly didn't look at the date very closely? Irtapil (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Hamas#Israel_ally_of_hamas? --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive link, I'll have a closer look at that later. But I was in the process of writing more detail about above. I saved a topic heading as a place holder because other people editing the page kept glitching my attempts to write more.

As far as i am aware that info re 1980s is true from reliable sources and i can provide additional reliable sources if needed.

That's not ideal, the opening comparison is a bit unrealistic, and I need to find an official human-curated transcript. There is an auto generated transcript on the YouTube version, but the ABC usually do proper transcripts.

The removed content did have two references already.

Possibly instead of just "1980s" it should give a specific end date and specify "pre-militant era", to avoid future confusion.

A suitable end date would be around the time Ahmed Yassin was first arrested.

The alleged support from נתניהו … i HATE Latin vowels… Netanyahu et al. after that date warrants inclusion in the article (if it isn't already), but not the info box. While you're at it @Orgullomoore: are there any relevant talk archives about that?

Irtapil (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not that the sources are untrue. The issue is that they do not support the claim that Israel and Hamas had an alliance. They support the claim that Israel "enabled its rise" (WaPo) and "stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled" (WSJ) for the purpose of countering the PLO. This is not the same as being in an alliance. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Hamas is no longer "anti-communist"?

When did this happen? Are they now promoting Lenin and saying they want to create a dictatorship of the proletariat in Gaza? Hamas is and always was explicitly anti-communist. Change it back. Jester6482 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Emulsification92 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC) This is kind of reaching into discussion of the topic territory as opposed to discussing the article, but I think that given their cooperation with the PFLP in the current war, they arent exactly stringently devoted to anti-communism. (sorry if this is formatted wrong, i dont edit much)

Wartime alliances don't change an organizations underlying ideologies. Obscuring that is POV. Jester6482 (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Occupation

Quite interesting how the entire movement bases its legitimacy on fighting the occupation, but the word was never mentioned once in lede; now it has after my edit, and more should be elaborated on when they were formed during occupation, their grievances with the occupation, etc..; as the body already mentions some of these topics. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

There are a few grammar mistakes 2601:280:C400:30C0:FCD0:35DC:3DCA:4A0A (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to be specific. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Russia supports Hamas

Russia (partly) supports Hamas. Add Russia to the list. 1 2 3 46.104.6.215 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done, support is not the same thing as being an ally. Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

State oponents

Jordan and Egypt banning/clamping down on activities in their respective countries does not mean they are state opponents; a more explicit source is needed like the one for the UAE which states that it is hostile to Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede 2

@Dovidroth: Did you just turn the lede into 7 long paragraphs, claimed there is a consensus for it here, and called it constructive? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake, it should be better now. Dovidroth (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: You still indiscriminately reverted all of my edits. What are the ones you disagree with? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

My intention was to revert another mass-revert and things got out of hand. I will go over and redo your edits later, or you can do them meanwhile. Dovidroth (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: you seem to have made major changes to the lead. There was some discussion at Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring on making changes to how to present Hamas' position on 1967 borders and antisemitism, but your changes were not what is proposed, and in any case there wasn't yet consensus to the proposed changes either. There appears to be absolutely no consensus for your edits. Please self-revert.VR _talk 18:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

147.235.210.133 (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please change that Hamas has become a terorr organization after 7th October 2023 after the massacre involved and after holding over 240 hostages including children women and men and don't allow the red cross to enter visit the hostages and do their job.

•  Not done This has been discussed before. This article already notes which nations consider Hamas to be a terror group- not all nations do(Turkey explicitly does not). To call them a terror group in Wikipedia's voice, the preponderance of reliable sources must call them this- that seems unlikely to occur. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:TERRORIST. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel ally of hamas?

Both of the citations provifed dont make the controversial claim israel is or was allied with Hamas. Either provide better citations or remove it. 46.121.146.123 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've checked the sources and you're right. Of course, Israel supported Hamas, or at least looked the other way in the 1980s, but if our sources do not call them allies the proper place to describe their relationship is the article body. Alaexis_¿question? 18:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It is straightforward to find sourcing re the Israel Hamas relationship, Israel was never an ally but it has suited Israel to keep Palestinians separated, at least until the recent events. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed it [3]. Whoever puts it back should explain why Israel's refraining from opposing it or using it as a way of dividing and conquering the Palestinians is the same as being a state ally. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Skitash previously removed Israel from the list of state allies in the infobox with the edit summary This took place before Hamas existed. It belongs in Muhama al-Islamiya. (20:28, 17 November 2023). It was re-added by MaliMail without any edit summary (20:46, 19 November 2023). --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth removed it with the edit summary Unsupported. Too big of a stretch. There's no indication Hamas was Israel's ally back then, even if they got some help to counter Fatah. See also WP:EXCEPTIONAL (05:02, 23 October 2023). MaliMail re-added it with the edit summary it is supported on the source (13:27, 23 October 2023). @MaliMail, you need to stop edit-warring. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is its original inception in the infobox by, no shocker, MaliMail: [4] (23:03, 21 October 2023) (no edit summary). --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

What does the Washington post article say? I can only read the headline that "Israel helped create Hamas". VR _talk 00:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The archived link has the full text. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the other countries be reviewed in the same way as a similar argument could be going by the sources cited for Afghanistan and Venezuela Hamas allies?--Imran786 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Worth checking all of them. There is a big difference between supporting someone and being their ally. Alaexis_¿question? 07:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mosbug1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead 3

Dovidroth recently edit-warred[5][6] in some content into the lead. There was an ongoing discussion on what content to have relating to Hamas's various political positions at Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring. But the content Dovidroth added was never proposed before. Per WP:ONUS, you need consensus to include content. Keep in mind that we do indeed have consensus that "Hamas accepts the 1967 borders, and the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution" should be in the lead. (See Talk:Hamas/Archive_23#RFC:_Should_Hamas_be_described_as_accepting_the_1967_Israeli_borders_in_the_lead?) But how should Hamas's past antisemitism should be included in the lead is subject to discussion before inclusion. I think further discussion on the exact wording should keep happening at Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring, and we should keep the consensus version for now until its clear consensus changes.VR _talk 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The RfC option that got the most votes was "Hamas is predominately described as accepting the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders, post 2017. Early viewpoints are significantly trimmed from the article." Now there is only one sentence in the lede on the pre-2017 views, which is in line with the RfC outcome. Alaexis_¿question? 23:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Couple of things. First, the early points are given a lot of weight currently in the lead even though, as you said above, the option that got most votes called for them to "significantly trimmed from the article". Second, later discussion, showed that there was consensus for including "the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution" (unless you disagree with the closure, in which case we would take this to WP:AN or start a new RfC). But the current lead, which was edit-warred in, clearly has no consensus, as discussion here and in Talk:Hamas#Edit_warring shows.VR _talk 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should Hamas' ideology be described as anti-imperialist in the infobox?

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

There is a clear consensus for option #2 in this discussion. Proponents of said options are both numerically in the majority, and prevail over those who supported option #1 both numerically and in terms of the strength of their arguments. While supporters of option #3 made cogent points, these did not attain sufficient support to sway the consensus that way. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Should Hamas be described as anti-imperialist in the infobox?

• Option #1: Ideology: Anti-imperialism shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox
• Option #2: Ideology: Anti-imperialism
• Option #3: Ideology: Anti-imperialism (disputed)

The options are the above. There has been significant edit warring within the article over the past week related to this. KlayCax (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• what do the reliable sources say? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67: The comments below, mainly based on original research, show the importance of evaluating the reliable sources before coming here. Upon a quick search I found "HAMAS equates Zionism with Nazism and imperialism."[7]. More sources should be sought though. Mhhossein ^talk 20:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Such a statement would equate Zionism with imperialism, which is, to say the least, an extremely contentious matter and utterly inappropriate for Wikivoice. Infoboxes should generally err on the side of caution regarding potentially controversial, let alone inflammatory, claims.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether Zionism is imperialist or not is unrelated to whether Hamas ideologically believes itself to be anti-imperialist. Who said the internal ideologies of organizations are academically accurate? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Zionist state is undoubtedly a settler-colonial, imperialist and irredentist entity; which was founded after the ethnic cleansing of native Palestinians. It currently occupies territories of the State of Palestine and Syria. During 1980s, it invaded Lebanon and occupied southern Lebanon for nearly 15 years. (until it got defeated and expelled militarily) It has also been aggressively annexing more and more Palestinian lands.

Many Jewish dissidents criticize or oppose such imperialist, irredentist and expansionist policies; but its a fact that the Zionist state itself is a settler-colonial and imperial entity. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or an advocacy website. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 21:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Drsmoo (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. "Anti-imperialism" and "Anti-semitisim/Zionism/etc." are not the same thing. WonderCanada (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Now the only source supporting this assertion is Between the Lines by Toufic Haddad and Tikva Honig-Parnass (Israeli radical anti-occupation movement activist), published by Haymarket books, a 'left-wing non-profit, independent book publisher.' Are there other, less biased sources which characterise them this way? Alaexis_¿question? 09:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, unless RS are provided that establish either of the other options. François Robere (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 Most of the sources dont describe it in such way so it will be wp:undue to do so

Shrike (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. This is the source in the article's infobox for anti-imperialism. The information should be expanded before a decision is made. Senorangel (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 2: In addition to news reports, there are plenty of academic sources discussing the anti-imperialism of Hamas. I dont know why an academic source which cited the anti-imperialist character of Hamas movement was erased repeatedly from this page.

• From "Between the Lines" (2007) edited by Tikva Honig-Parnass, Toufic Haddad.

Publisher: Haymarket Books

"Nowhere did the Zionist left bother to respond to analysts like Azmi Bishara, who time and again emphasized that in supporting Hamas, the Palestinian people were declaring that they opposed the former PA policies, which had succumbed to Israeli dictates. Nor did their general political view allow them to relate to the anti-imperialist essence inherent in Hamas's resistance.."

• From "The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion" (2010) edited by John Hinnells. Publisher: Routledge

  There is also a nationalist and anti-imperial dimension to most Islamic militancy. Hamas is a fundamentalist movement in the sense that it advocates a state based on strict conformity to Islamic law, and the followers of Hamas are expected to follow a strictly Islamic code of conduct. At the same time, however, Hamas is clearly a Palestinian nationalist movement that echoes most of the traditional demands of the Palestinian Liberation Organization before it accepted the idea of the partition of pre-1948 Palestine into a Jewish state on 78 percent of the land and a Palestinian state on the remaining 22 percent

• From "A History of Palestinian Islamic Jihad" (2021) authored by Erik Skare. Publisher: Cambridge University Press

  These qualifications, however, do not necessarily weaken my claim that the thought and practice of PIJ and Hamas derive from two different political traditions. First, both movements opposed Western colonialism and its complicity in the crimes of the Israeli occupation. Yet, Hamas's theorization about the instrumental Zionist-Western relationship made it explore the division of responsibilities in the liberation struggle. That is, the movement explored the issue of who had to bear the greatest costs of "Zionists and imperialist projects." Hamas concluded that liberation could not be borne by the Palestinian resistance alone. Hroub thus argues that "one finds evidence of the line of thinking [in Hamas] that originated in the 1970s... that is, an Islamic state [should first] be established outside (Palestine), and such a state should take a lion's share of the responsibility for liberation." Accordingly, Hamas never expected the First Intifada to lead to the liberation of Palestine. This conclusion would necessarily distinguish Hamas from PIJ, with the confidence of the latter in the Palestinian masses and their armed struggle. As Hatina notes: "A general enlistment of the Muslim world to join the struggle in Palestine [was] acknowledged as impractical [by PIJ]. The main burden, in consequence, at least in the initial phase, [had to] fall on the Muslims of Palestine.
  Second, these differing views on the division of responsibilities, and the realism of the Palestinian struggle, would necessarily affect their approach to the West and the application of their anti-colonial analysis in daily and diplomatic practices.

• "Conversations with Terrorists: Middle East Leaders on Politics, Violence, and Empire" (2016) authored by Reese Erlich & Baer Robert. Publisher: Routledge

  Hamas was founded in December 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin and his followers as a branch of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood had a long history in the Middle East as an anti-imperialist organization seeking to establish Arab governments ruled by a strict interpretation of Islam....
  From the beginning Hamas saw itself as a distinct, religious trend and refused to join the PLO. Hamas sought to merge a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam with anti-imperialism.

As everyone can see, numerous academic sources have clearly described Hamas as an anti-imperialist movement. Outside the academia, it is well-known that various media outlets, political and civilian activists across the world, describe Hamas movement as anti-imperialist.

Due to the settler-colonial nature of Zionist nationalism, Zionists of all political persuasions attempt to deny the anti-imperialist character of Hamas insurgents. (as mentioned in the above listed academic sources)

I view these ongoing, repeated attempts to remove and censor the well-sourced content regarding anti-imperialism of Hamas insurgents as part of the Western-centric systemic bias prevelant in this "online encyclopaedia". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 for now, in light of sources presented by Shadowwarrior8. I'm open to seeing contrarian sources too.VR _talk 02:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 (Summoned by bot) there are serious academic sources in which it is clear that Hamas consider themselves to be anti-imperialist. For example, Meir Litvak who is the Chair of the Department of Middle Eastern and African History at Tel Aviv University writes in two places of an article that "More important, Hamas regards the struggle against Israel and the Jews as part of a broader religious war waged between the Islamic and Western civilizations. It is the latest and most fateful phase of the relentless onslaught waged by Western imperialism and culture against Islam since the time of the Crusades. Both the capitalist West and the Communist East are regarded as one entity in this context because of their support for Zionism. Thus Hamas depicted the 1991 Gulf War as a war of the 'crusaders [Western] coalition' against Islam in order to complete what Zionism had been unable to do. In addition, the Jews were sometimes portrayed as instruments of the West, or alternatively as the power which controls and manipulates the West. The US, for instance, was described as a servant of Israel and as seeking to subjugate the Arabs according to the Jewish plan" and "The ramifications of the Palestinian jihad, according to Hamas, go far beyond Palestine. History from the times of the Crusades has shown that the Islamic nation unites only around Palestine , writes Abd al-Hafiz 'Alawi, a frequent contributor to Filastin al-Muslima. The Palestinian cause is the common denominator of all popular movements in the Muslim world. The loss of Palestine was the beginning of the nation's collapse and disintegration, and the liberation of Palestine is a necessary precondition for the nation's cultural revival and progress. Moreover, humanity everywhere, which is oppressed by American imperialism and Zionism, looks forward to the defeat of these forces as the first step towards its liberation. There is no future for this nation and this region, he concluded, except by liberating Palestine and by removing the Zionist state which constitutes the obstacle to Arab and Islamic revival". TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Option #2: There appears to be plenty of evidence that Hamas views its own activities through an anti-imperialist lense, and by contrast, no evidence contradicting this and asserting that it does not. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option #3: Ideology: Anti-imperialism (disputed) They may view themselves as anti-imperialist, but they also say they are committed to the destruction of Israel, which goes beyond simply being anti-imperialist. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2, with the assumption that the rest of the section is staying rather than being replaced (that is Anti-imperialism in addition to Palestinian nationalism, Islamism, etc rather than instead of). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Option #2, although it would would benefit from the addition of ideaologies such as nationalism, Palestinian self-determinaton, etc. Estep00 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option #2, and I would also add "Anti-colonialism" to that. Baconi (2018, page 226) writes "In that sense, Hamas is akin to a religious and armed anticolonial resistance movement". VR _talk 21:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option #1: In fact Hamas may be imperialist itself, seeking to establish a muslim empire worldwide. Article 23 of the Hamas Charter expresses support for all Islamic movements "if they reveal good intentions and dedication to Allah." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you quote WP:SECONDARY reliable sources to uphold that assertion? VR _talk 04:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is my opinion that may be shared by other editors. It showcases controversy of statements about it and as such a reason why option 1 is more desirable. Also, the infobox should reflect what reliable sources say, as such if there are reliable sources directly stating it is anti-imperialist, then that's fine. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the case, plenty of academic sources have indeed been cited in the RfC which explains the anti-imperialist nature of Hamas.

  Regarding the ideological aims of Hamas, "Hamas Charter" page mostly explains the 1988 charter of Hamas. In 2017, Hamas adopted a new charter. Its text can be read here. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 per all above Parham wiki (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 per provided sources. If some disputing sources could be found, I wouldn't be opposed to Option 3, but I don't think Option 1 is an option at this point. Loki (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 at least, based on a casual search I did of disputing sources (from both the left and the right). There is The Atlantic (https://web.archive.org/web/20231102003927/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/decolonization-narrative-dangerous-and-false/675799/), The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/left-wing-defenses-of-hamas-are-an-insult-to-palestinians), Social Europe (https://www.socialeurope.eu/israel-and-hamas-the-debasement-of-discourse), Socialist Appeal (https://socialist.net/marxists-cannot-support-islamic-fundamentalism-hamas/), National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/feature/latin-american-support-hamas-threatens-american-interests-207051), and Dissent Magazine (https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/toward-a-humane-left/) all challenging or criticising the anti-imperialist label. I have not done a search in Google Scholar or other academia-related engines, so there are probably even more disputing sources that can be found...

I also did a search of sources in Portuguese and Swedish out of curiosity and found articles from Göteborgs-Posten editor Adam Cwejman (https://www.gp.se/ledare/sovjets-propaganda-präglar-fortfarande-bilden-av-israel-1.114466524) and Brazilian columnist Denis Lerrer Rosenfield in O Estado de S. Paulo (https://web.archive.org/web/20231106065608/https://www.estadao.com.br/opiniao/denis-lerrer-rosenfield/dicionario-da-ignominia/) criticising some leftist figures' pro-Hamas sympathy on anti-imperialist reasoning. An analyst from the Instituto de Estudos Políticos (https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/hamas/gaza/dina-matos-ferreira-terroristas-como-atores-da-guerra-um-guia-para-as-percecoes/20231027/653c0233d34e65afa2f6ebe6) most explicitly opposes this label, contending that Hamas is linked to 'Islamic imperialism' and the spread of Sharia. John Gray (https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-10-19/john-gray-philosopher-the-west-has-a-false-view-of-hamas-as-an-anti-colonial-movement-it-has-more-in-common-with-isis.html) rejects the anti-colonial label on the group, which is similar. So if option 2 is taken, I think both the supporting and dissenting views on 'anti-imperiaism' should be added to the article body or it would be pushing an outdated and one-sided viewpoint. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 per provided sources, and related explanations by the users who selected Option-2. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 1, sure they describe themselves as "anti-imperialist", but this is empty propaganda and not a significant aspect of the organization. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment, none of the editors who oppose the inclusion of well-sourced content have actually provided any academic source. Either they make WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments against Hamas, or in one case, bring up biased & partisan opinion pieces.

Here is another academic source stating that Hamas movement is anti-imperialist.

It is well-known that Hamas movement is widely described as an anti-imperialist movement in the academia. There is no need to ask the personal opinion of other editors to include this well-recognized content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to including it but it should be included along with many of the sources I listed. And sorry, but many of those “biased & partisan opinion pieces” like The Atlantic, CNN, and El Pais are considered acceptable by most Wiki editors. If you’re advocating the addition of your sources while saying mine should be excluded from the article, it would not be in line with Wiki policy as WP:RSOPINION states that op-eds in mainstream Western outlets are allowed, just not as assertions in Wikivoice (where conflicting sources should be included).

Also do you have a source from no further back to the start of this war that still contends Hamas is anti-imperialist? Because many European commentators do not seem to agree with the description now. Considering the Hamas attack made headlines all over the globe for the past month, your content (though adequately sourced) would qualify for a dated template. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 1. Not even one source was brought here with a quote: "Hamas is Anti-Imperialist". So far the sources went vaguely around assumed parts of analysis. TaBaZzz (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That's your blatant original research. Academic sources provided here have clearly asserted the anti-imperialist character of Hamas and allied insurgent groups like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option #2, Ideology: Anti-imperialism. As I understand the proposal, it is to add "anti-imperialism" to the already-listed ideologies of Palestinian nationalism, Islamism, Islamic nationalism, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, and Ant-communism. I don't see why not, per the sources extensively quoted by Shadowwarrior8. I also don't see what the big deal is. Hamas believes the State of Israel was foisted upon Arab Palestinians, without their knowledge or consent, first by the British Empire (see Sykes–Picot Agreement and Balfour Declaration) and after that by the United States and other members of the United Nations (see United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#The_vote). They see that as imperialism, to which they are opposed, hence anti-imperialism. Whether their worldview is correct is not something we can solve. --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Shadowwarrior8 and Orgullomoore. People not liking the sources isnt something that should factor in to our consensus process, when sources support something we say that. And beyond that, we routinely include what parties say about their own views. We for example say the Republican Party (United States) has an ideology of fiscal conservatism despite Republican presidents having larger deficits than Democratic ones (source), or centrism despite the evidence of the contrary. But regardless, the sourcing here is solid, and that is what should count. nableezy - 03:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. One should look at the best available tertiary sources here like Britannica [8]. It says: "Hamas, militant Palestinian nationalist and Islamist movement". EB provides a long article about it, but nowhere calls Hamas an organization with anti-imperialist ideology. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  It also nowhere mentions Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, or Anti-communism. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps My very best wishes is arguing we should also remove antisemitism from their ideology? nableezy - 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  EB says (link above): "But Hamas continued to reject the legitimacy of Israel... Yahya Sinwar, became the local leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip (2017– ), he stated in a roundtable discussion with young Gazans: “Gone is the time in which Hamas discussed recognition of Israel. The discussion now is about when we will wipe out Israel.” Therefore, yes, it is anti-Zionist by definition and arguably antisemitic. As about "anti-communist" - no, this does not appear anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Arguably is definitionally OR. nableezy - 05:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  To paraphrase Ian Hislop, if Britannica is one of the best available tertiary sources then I'm a banana. There are surely better scholarly tertiary sources covering this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What other widely-recognized tertiary sources would you suggest? I did not see any in discussion above. EB is a neutral, non-partisan source. See WP:Tertiary: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

But no secondary source has been provided conflicting with this. It is simply the Wikipedia editors who dislike what the sources say that dispute it, not other sources. nableezy - 05:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Quick source check identifies a number of other tertiary sources that could be used here (Google books search for "Hamas" AND "encyclopedia"), but most are not available online. One of them [9] says that "Hamas equates Zionism with Nazism and imperialism". Does it mean that Hamas is an anti-imperialist organization? No, it does not, and the source does not claim it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  We prefer secondary sources, which we are tasked with summarizing here, not tertiary sources whose editorial policies we do not know. Our editorial policy is to summarize secondary sources with due weight given to disputed views in accordance to their weight among reliable sources. nableezy - 05:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 per sources given by Shadowwarrior8. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per sources given by Shadowwarrior8 and Donkey Hot-day. The sources conflict, so I don't think it's really that bad if we say that Hamas being anti-imperialist is disputed. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 21:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

References

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

Post-rfc work

I have closed the rfc above and uncommented the line in the infobox per the consensus. However, now we have antiïmperialism listed in the infobox but not the body text. As such, it will need to be written in to the body at an appropriate spot as soon as possible. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I do hope the body text will contain some of the sources I listed. It would be weird to include sources from 2021 and earlier while excluding ones in 2023 that are in line with WP:RSP and cited everywhere else in Wikipedia like CNN, The Atlantic, and El Pais. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I see this discussion was about "anti-imperialist" - but is used in the article to justify also anti colonial. If that is what people want to discuss, may I suggest opening a separate discussion. I don't see any consensus on anti colonial. Tal Galili (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes this seems to be an issue. Also from understanding of RFC, anti-Imperialist is only for infobox. If one wishes to add it to lead then full scope of characteristics ought to be added no? Homerethegreat (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste - given that there is a decision to move anti-imperialist" into the lead section from the info box, does it not also stand to reason to include "Antisemitism", as mentioned in the info box? Tal Galili (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

"is often used as a synonym for imperialism"[10] But we can open a separate thread if you feel the consensus for anti-imperialist doesn't justify anti-colonial. And I believe antisemitic is already included in the lead?VR _talk 14:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

if it's a synonym, why do we need it there as well? Tal Galili (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Colonial and Anti-Imperialist are different things. We must be very careful in our wording since there is the potential to seriously mislead readers. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine. But do you at least agree there is consensus that anti-imperialism is undisputed part of Hamas ideology? I'm not asking if you personally disagree with this, I'm asking for you to acknowledge that such a consensus exists among users in general. VR _talk 20:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Talgalili: Just to mention that we are not going to "move" anything from infobox to lead. As for the inclusion of colonial phrase, is there any substantiated objection against its inclusion? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mhhossein - I think that there are two narratives about Hamas, but only one of them seems clear to me in the first paragraph of the lead. The first narrative is that it's a political militant group, with anti colonial anti imperialist ideologies, something that would lean into the Freedom Fighters narrative. The other is antisemitic, authoritarian, dictatorial, terrorists. Given that this article is in dispute, I suspect making sure that there is as little "wiki voice" in it, while there is as much exposure to both views is the best way moving forward. Does that make sense? Tal Galili (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I see, the antisemitic 'narration' is already in the lead 3rd paragraph, in an attributed manner. The question is why 'anti-imperialism' is not featured there despite being inserted in the infobox thanks to the consensus built on the talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

This revert is hopelessly POV, I changed this a while back so as not to treat the past as if it were current and now it is reverted back in doing exactly that.

Editors opinions invited as to the appropriateness of this material in this location and worded as is? Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the current formulation is good and provides historical context without which the reader cannot understand what Hamas is. I am open to other formulations, but I think the original treaty need to be mentioned in the lead. Dovidroth (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how overemphasizing a single political document from the late 80s does help readers understand anything. It certainly helps paint a picture, but I don't think that picture has anything to do with helping readers understand. The old charter is barely referenced by Hamas; they have said over the years to ignore it; and in 2017 they expressly overwrote it, presumably in response to the massive over-fixation on the moribund charter released amid the South Lebanon conflict. Politics evolve. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The current formulation as mentioned above is a reflection of Hamas' ideological ideas and history. Indeed the charter was Hamas' charter for 85% of its history. Indeed it is well backed that Hamas seeks the establishment of a state that reflects Sunni Islamic law. Furthermore, rhetoric and Hamas actions continues to reflect anti-Semitic tropes. Indeed Hamas' intentions has been documented and spoken of extensively. Since this remains an important aspect of Hamas' ideology. It remains relevant to maintain it in the Lead. We should attempt to reflect the truth, especially in light of the danger of accidentally misinforming the reader. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a lit review might be in order, as we ought to lean much more into the weighting scholarship gives to the documents. You could be right (or not), but it’s WP:OR without a look at how the scholarship weighs the two. Yr Enw (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of the original founding charter of Hamas in the lead section of its Wikipedia page is both due and relevant. This charter, a critical document for understanding the group's historical and ideological origins, is essential for providing a comprehensive and timeless view of Hamas, avoiding the negative implications of WP:RECENTISM.

Here is how I see it:

• Providing basic details on the founding charter in the lead section is particularly important for understanding the evolution of Hamas ideology from its original, openly antisemitic stance to a position more focused on anti-Zionism. In line with WP:LEDE, the lead section should provide a concise overview of the article's topic. This includes identifying the topic, establishing context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing important points, including prominent controversies.
• Furthermore, the current length of the lead section does not exceed the rule of thumb. This version stands as a comprehensive overview of Hamas, including its foundation, objectives, and notable shifts in policy and ideology, without being excessively detailed or lengthy.
• Based on a quick lit review that I performed, prior to 2017, all sources (naturally) talk about the original charter, while after 2017, most sources appear to discuss both the new and the original charter, highlighting the difference.
• One example for how scholarly works on Hamas frame the topic can be seen in this quote

  The main source of Ḥamās’ philosophy can be seen in the Ḥamās Covenant which was published by Aḥmad Yāsīn on 18 August 1988 (Hamas Covenant 1988). The principles of the charter emphasise that ideologically this is an Islamic revivalist movement with a militant dimension. The two main pillars of Ḥamās ideology are: Palestinian nationalism and Arab Islamism (Gleis and Berti 2012: 134–143). In May 2017, Ḥamās published “A Document of General Principles and Policies” emphasising the nationalistic character of the movement (Hamas 2017). According to Ḥamās, the Jews do not have a right to any portion of Palestinian land.

Marokwitz (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The above assertion "the Jews do not have a right to any portion of Palestinian land" (presumbly referring to the entire land from river to the sea) is contradicted by most scholarly sources that have studied Hamas in depth. See the sources below.

17 scholarly sources that say Hamas accepted the 1967 borders (hidden, click "show" to see)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 12. Shameer Modongal:

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

• 13. Baconi, who wrote one of the more comprehensive books on Hamas, writes:

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

• 14. Tristan Dunning writes:

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

• 15. Loren Lybarger writes:

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

• 16. Krista Weigand writes:

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

• 17. Ayoob (2009, page 126) writes:

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

• I reverted this major change to the lead. This major change was never discussed and completely changed the long-standing lead for which there is some consensus. It also misrepresents what the sources say. If you want to make such a major change, please discuss on talk first.VR _talk 03:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

New proposal

Following my reading of the literature, I'd like to make a proposal for a shorter, more neutral version of the text in dispute that keeps the most important elements. Hope that this is accepted:

The main pillars of Hamas ideology are Palestinian nationalism and Arab Islamism. The 1988 founding charter of Hamas, published by Aḥmad Yasin, frames its ideology as a struggle against Jews and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in the area that is today Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. In 2017, Hamas updated its charter to support a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, without recognizing Israel. The long-term goal of Hamas is disputed: some view Hamas's offer of a truce based on the 1967 borders as consistent with a two-state solution, while others believe Hamas retains the long-term objective to establish one state in former Mandatory Palestine. While the original covenant is often criticized as antisemitic, referencing a hadith which states that the Day of Judgment would not come until Muslims fight and kill the Jews, the 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language, clarifying that Hamas's struggle is with Zionists, not Jews.

Marokwitz (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I like it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Fine with this compromise. Dovidroth (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the above version for two reasons:

1. is that the topic of the hadith is so nuanced it can't be covered in the lead. The hadith you refer to predates the existence of Hamas by more than a thousand years. The discussion belongs in the body and would be off-topic for the lead.

2. You completely omitted the Hamas agreements on the 1967 borders with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007.VR _talk 03:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Also what exactly is "Arab Islamism"? There is no mention of that anywhere in the body, and the lead should not be introducing novel concepts that are not covered in the rest of the body.VR _talk 03:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Would you be OK with While the original covenant was antisemitic, the 2017 charter . . .? --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"While the original covenant is often criticized as antisemitic, the 2017 charter removed the related components, clarifying that Hamas's struggle is with Zionists, not Jews." ? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer Iskandars version. VR _talk 14:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I struck out the first sentence.Marokwitz (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried to preserve chronological order. I omitted the Hamas agreements with Fatah since I assessed it as undue weight, after surveying the academic sources; I have no significant problem with putting it back if you think this is a crucial detail. Regarding Arab Islamism, you are right that the term is not used elsewhere , this sentence can be removed as it is not crucial for the proposal. Marokwitz (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, "Arab Islamism" should just be "Islamism." I didn't catch that. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good compromise, as it appropriately balances the original charter, fundamental for understanding Hamas' ideology, with debates surrounding later actions and revisions.

The hadith mentioned is crucial for understanding the ideological foundations of Hamas, and the agreements with Fatah are not leadworthy. I agree with Orgullomoore, the term 'Arab Islamism' should be replaced with 'Islamism,' which is directly supported by the sources. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you see the scholarly sources above? I provided 17 which agree that Hamas accepted the 1967 borders. We must give WP:DUE weight. VR _talk 14:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I do think the Farah agreements are crucial detail because of two reasons. First scholarly sources emphasize that 2017 wasn't the first time Hamas accepted the 1967 borders. Second Hamas Fatah conflict and conciliation are a significant series of events over the last 20 years. VR _talk 14:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, this seems to follow NPOV as well. I also find its better written. Although I do find it a bit long. Following VR's comment on Arab Islamism, perhaps it ought to be described as Sunni Islamism or just Islamism? Otherwise well termed. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It gives too much weight to elements of the 1988 charter even though scholarship has started to give overwhelming weight to tracking the evolution of Hamas ideology. See the 17 scholalrly sources I provided above. VR _talk 14:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is exactly my point: Tracking the evolution of Hamas' ideology is important, and this is why the proposed version clearly states this evolution from the original charter to the new one. For this we need to talk about the foundational charter and updated charters and how they differ. This is crucial for understanding of Hamas. Marokwitz (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

But the version below does that, along with providing intermediate steps taken by Hamas in 2005, 2006 and 2007. VR _talk 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding the hadith some insist on mentioning, scholars believe it is misunderstood and taken out of context. Professor David Cook writes this hadith "stands virtually alone" in classical Islamic sources and the "vast majority of classical Muslim apocalyptic literature is concerned with the power enemies facing Islam during the seventh to ninth centuries, namely the Byzantines and Turks. It was not concerned with Israel or the United States, neither of which existed yet and both of which were well beyond the range of imagination that produced the classical literature." Hussein Solomon and Arno Tausch (both professors at University of the Free State) point that even Salafis agree that this hadith is contradicted by "Whoever kills a non-Muslim living under Muslim ruler will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." The analysis of this hadith is beyond the scope of the lead of this article. I can provide more sources too that show this hadith doesn't mean what you think it means.VR _talk 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think the relevant consideration would be what the writers of original charter thought it meant. But I do agree that it's too complicated to properly explain in a single sentence and should therefore be left for a different part of the article. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  This complicated offshoot topic is not fitting well in the lead. Even for other sections, it should be used with care. Mhhossein ^talk 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Current version

But the lead already says

While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine, Hamas began accepting the 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2017, Hamas released a new charter that supported a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognizing Israel. Hamas's repeated offers of a truce (for a period of 10–100 years) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution, while others state that Hamas retains the long-term objective of establishing one state in former Mandatory Palestine. While the 1988 charter of Hamas was widely described as antisemitic, Hamas's 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language and said Hamas's struggle was with Zionists not Jews.

It covers both the issue of the 1967 borders and antisemitism. It is also more concise than the proposal above, while covering more ground (such as the 2005, 2006 and 2007 agreements).VR _talk 03:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this version toned down the original treaty and aspirations upon which Hamas was founded, and according to many scholars maintains to this day. Therefore, I think the above proposed versions better reflect the situation. Dovidroth (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, I provided 17 scholarly sources showing that the overwhelming amount of scholars believe Hamas ideology has evolved and is no longer the same as it was back in 1988. VR _talk 14:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

+1, sourcing settles this. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly object to this version - As I have shown above, in my survey of reliable sources I found they mention the old and new charter with roughly equal weight (or provide more weight to the original foundational charter of 1988), and placing much stronger emphasis on the 2017 charter is an issue with recentism as well as not inline with our due weight policy. Marokwitz (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I see your analysis of Bartal, are you referring to it, or is there another survey somewhere else? Alaexis_¿question? 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources I found are older than 2017, so they give weight only to the original covenant. The newer sources that I found, including a book by Dr. Niall Christie covering the Hamas covenant (cited above), as well as Bartal, both seem to talk about the old charter, the new charter, and how they differ. Marokwitz (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The older sources should be given less weight here per WP:AGEMATTERS. Pretending like older sources that predate later developments retain their authority is silly. We arent writing an article in 2015. nableezy - 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that older sources should be given equal weight. Not at all. I'm saying that the academic sources covering Hamas after 20072017 seem to talk about the old charter and the new charter, in chronological order, and explain how the new charter is different, and this is what I think we should do in the lead - as shown in my 'New proposal' above. Marokwitz (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you meant 2017, right? --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Markowitz, I cited 17 scholarly sources and you have thus far only cited 2. VR _talk 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. How many of those 17 scholarly sources don't talk about the 1988 charter? My main problem is giving vastly undue weight to the Hamas foundational charter in your version. Marokwitz (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on my reading, all of those sources emphasize that Hamas's views have evolved and place greater emphasis on its later views. VR _talk 22:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Seurat (2022) at pp. 16-19 contains a pretty thorough post-2017 analysis of the evolution of Hamas's stance in 1988, 1990s, 2005-2012, and 2017 - present. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the sources I cited! I think comprehensive sources like Seurat should be preferred over sources that mention Hamas ideology in passing. Another detailed description is contained in Tareq Baconi's Hamas Contained, published by Stanford University Press. VR _talk 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

How would you summarize the evolution of Hamas's ideology in one paragraph? This is what we should include in the lead. "While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine" is vastly under-weighting the ideology of Hamas for its first ~20 years. Marokwitz (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The ideology for the vast majority of the history of the organization cannot be summarized in half a sentence and needs to be given more weight. Dovidroth (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Fresh scholarly sources should be preferred when judging what to include and how to frame the group's history. Also, I am not fan of adding historical details from old sources per WP:AGEMATTERS (which should be enough for the current discussion). Mhhossein ^talk 21:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Second new proposal

Despite lack of consensus above, some users have edit-warred in the following version:

The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in its place. In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution. This shift was further solidified in 2017 Hamas released a new document described as accepting the concept of a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as consistent with the two-state solution, without recognition of Israel. The new charter specified that Hamas's conflict was with the Zionists, not Jews as a whole, removing the previous antisemitic language. Despite these changes and Hamas's proposals for truces lasting between 10 to 100 years, many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine.

There are several problems here:

• It gives more weight to the older charter than the newer one. As Marokwitz acknowledged, the post-2017 sources give significant space to the newer charter and how it differs from older one, and as nableezy pointed out, we need to be mindful of WP:AGEMATTERS.
  • I provided 17 scholarly sources that found this shift to be significant. See #17scholarlysources
• The version says " In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution", but I don't think the source says "interim". Speaking of which, why was the citation removed?
• The following sentence doesn't seem to make sense and seems to have dangling qualifiers "This shift was further solidified in 2017 Hamas released a new document described as accepting the concept of a transitional Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as consistent with the two-state solution, without recognition of Israel."
  • Described by who?
  • And what did they describe: that Hamas accepted the 1967 borders or that these borders are consistent with a two state solution?
  • Also the word "transitional" doesn't appear in either of the two citations at the end of that sentence.
  • "many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine". Most of the citations that follow that sentence don't actually say that.
• "Despite...Hamas's proposals for truces[21] lasting between 10 to 100 years,[22] many observers believe that Hamas's ultimate goal remains the establishment of a single state in the area of former Mandatory Palestine." This looks like WP:SYNTH. How many sources say that Hamas's 10-100 year truce proposal implies the establishment of a single state? Those that say that typically point to other pieces of evidence, not this one.

VR _talk 17:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and I reverted the edit-warred in lead. nableezy - 17:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)