Talk:Hamas

Strange word wrapping in Etymology section

At least on my iPhone XR (in Safari), there is a peculiarity in the word wrap of حركة المقاومة الإسلامية, whereby حركة appears at the end of one line, while the rest of the phrase appears at the beginning of the next lien. Obviously, حركة should appear at the end of the phrase, as Arabic is written in a right-to-left script. The misplacement of حركة is very confusing to the reader at first glance, since it appears in the context of an explanation that Hamas is an acronym, and the word is clearly out of order. Is this a common issue with mobile browser rendering of Arabic script? Is there any markup that will force the phrase to render appropriately across line wraps in any screen format? Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

On further examination, it appears that this problem is not specific to iOS or Safari. I am able to replicate it in Chrome on Windows 11 by adjusting the width of the browser window. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

On still further examination, this problem is not limited to the article page. In Chrome on Windows 11, this section of the Talk page garbles the phrase حركة المقاومة الإسلامية across a word break, with حركة appearing as the second word of the phrase, immediately following المقاومة. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't just the expected behaviour for the somewhat knotty problem of line-breaking an RTL phrase embedded in an LTR paragraph? I would expect these browsers to have correctly implemented Unicode's bidirectional line-breaking algorithm. JCBradfield (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Khaled Mashaal stepped down in 2017

for the section in the header reading "Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal are based in Qatar."

according to his wikipedia page, Khaled Mashaal stepped down in 2017 after reaching his term limit RedAuburn (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks. Fixed. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

On the Hamas Wiki page, Turkey is listed as Allies with a source. I've checked the source and read the article, the source only mentions "Turkey supports Hamas, Erdogan supports Hamas" without any source is being cited to support that argument. I think the source is subjective and not based on falsifiable facts. I think this part should me removed. It looks like someone actually tried to fix this based on what I see as "partial" added next to Turkey to denote their "partial" allegiance. I think someone should do something with this. This is bad journalism. Gorkemer (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 23:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023 (2)

Change: "Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh is based in Qatar." To "Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is based in Qatar."

(Remove the "S" in leaders. Only one leader described in this sentence. ) Uhhhum (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Can some please put on "(denied)" on "antisemitism"?

Here's the source "Hamas does not fight and resist the Israelis because they are Jews, but because they are occupiers. Hamas has no problem with anyone because of their religion, race, sect or idea; its key contradiction, however, is with the occupiers and aggressors." https://hamas.ps/en/page/5/About-Hamas#:~:text=Hamas%20does%20not%20fight%20and%20resist%20the%20Israelis%20because%20they%20are%20Jews%2C%20but%20because%20they%20are%20occupiers.%20Hamas%20has%20no%20problem%20with%20anyone%20because%20of%20their%20religion%2C%20race%2C%20sect%20or%20idea%3B%20its%20key%20contradiction%2C%20however%2C%20is%20with%20the%20occupiers%20and%20aggressors. 37.39.247.202 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the Statements to an international audience section. Alaexis_¿question? 19:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the Hamas protests in Australia chanting " gas the jews" shows otherwise 71.236.151.125 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Those protests are organized and carried out by Australians. You don't have to go halfway around the world to prove Hamas is antisemite, this article is being locked because of what actual members of Hamas had done. Martheencp (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization

The following discussion 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.

---

That should be its primary descriptor as such is with Al-Qaeda and ISIS 23.93.17.238 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. You are absolutely right but English Wikipedia is widely known to have a liberal bias. And, unlike other sources, Wikipedia does not officially acknowledge it.

What's happening right now is that Wikipedia's administrators take over pet articles, like this one, and protect by claiming everything needs to come from a "reliable source", as defined by themselves! They get to be the gatekeepers of it all and through a very convoluted process where you must register, become a known editor and already conform to their methods, you can then "vote" once every few years on what is and is not a "reliable source".

For the purposes of this article, they will skim over the largest countries in the world designating Hamas as a pure terrorist organization, since China doesn't consider it. And give it unequal weight since Reuters or AP, already biased sources, try to state Hamas is a "militant group" instead of purely a terrorist one. On this end, Wikipedia Administrators that have been editing and protecting this article for years, will unilaterally ignore the WSJ, NY Times, Globe and Mail, and BBC and go with AP's preferred term to "protect the integrity" of this article.

That is why, they will only allow the adjective "Terrorist" to be referred to in this article as a specific country's designation for Hamas is. Notwithstanding Hamas' allies are also other terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah.

All of this, dear IP editor, is to let you know that Wikipedia has not been and is not interested in being a neutral purveyor of news. Articles like this only show a very biased and globally liberal viewpoint.

2601:18B:8180:D810:91B:681B:EE69:D4AD (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand it's easy to get emotional given the events, but it is important that Wikipedia stays objective. The term "terrorism" is controversial. Many would argue the IDF's actions are also terrorism, for instance. The plain reality is that some countries think Hamas is terrorist; others do not. So we need to stay balanced. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think terrorism is purposely targeting civilians, whereas targeting militants with accidental civilian casualties wouldn't be terrorism. If Hamas is raiding shelters specifically meant for civilians and gunning down children with assault rifles, that is a terrorist act. 23.93.17.238 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF’s actions are in response to an initial attack. Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians for political purposes, like Hamas slaughtering concert goers. The plain fact is Hamas is a terrorist organization whereas the IDF is a nation’s army. Also the fact that the US lists Hamas as a terrorist organization is proof enough, unless you’re basing this off the opinions of Russian, China, North Korea and Iran. 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What I know about leftism is that it revolves around workers' rights and social welfare. I do not understand why or how a leftist website would sympathize with a fundamentalist and violent movement similar to right-wing western parties. Is this truly leftist or is Wikipedia under the influence of terror sympathizers? 23.93.17.238 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TERRORIST. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The pro-Hamas editor does everything possible to make Hamas look good, lol. Shocker. LVMH11 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s because leftists see everything as the oppressors vs the oppressed. In this case, Israel is the oppressor, or “occupier,” and Hamas is acting on behalf of poor, oppressed Palestine. 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Watch this reply get deleted. This perfectly sums up the problem with Wikipedia. Wonder why they have beg for donations every few weeks? The US has Hamas listed as a terrorist organization that should be enough. The AP, which gave us such racist gems as capitalizing the “b” in “black” but not the “w” in “white,” is a very biased source. However, the editors here don’t accept allsides.com as reliable, of course, because they don’t like that it shows how the majority of their “reliable sources” are left wing.

Source: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/ 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why on Earth would the use of the term by the US, a close ally of one of the countries involved in the conflict, be sufficient as reason it should be used here? You seem to be very confused about Wikipedia's neutrality stance as well as what constitutes a reliable source. 136.54.91.222 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is American and the US government is a reliable source. You need the New York Times to say it too? 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:3C1D:E840:4A26:D700 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Add acronym for PNA where it is first used

In the first paragraph, the reference to Palestinian National Authority should include the acronym used later in the article, i.e. "It also holds a majority in the parliament of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA)." -Ethan (talk) • 2023-10-08 19:47 (UTC) 19:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Andumé (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

In "Finances and Funding", paragraph 4:

Change "began cut its funding by cracking down on Islamic charities" to "began to cut its funding by cracking down on Islamic charities" Duckduckgoop (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (2)

Under "Terrorist designation":

Change "Japan and New Zealand," to "Japan and New Zealand" Duckduckgoop (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Anti semitism" in Hamas's ideologies needs editing

Anti-semitism is a form of racism, and Hamas used to emphasize anti-Semitism in the 1988 charter. However, Hamas now doesn't emphasize anti-Semitism after the 2017 charter was issued . And the the only people who deny the 2017 charter are the Zionists.. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral website, and keeping the "anti-Semitism" on "ideologies" doesn't help since it indirectly promotes Zionist views. I appreciate if you can either edit "anti-Semitism" to "anti-Semitism (denied)" or remove "anti-Semitism" from this article's ideologies section. 37.39.247.202 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it from the infobox, since it is indeed not established in the body that Hamas ideologically takes this position. There appears to be no assessment of the 2017 charter re: this at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's assessed negatively here, for instance, and in any case even without that any changes made supposedly on the basis of the 2017 charter need to be based on secondary sources. We must rely on secondary sources to evaluate how meaningful the changes really are, or if they are simply a PR move or whitewash. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way, that's western media, not OHCHR. Plus, the article that you mentioned cited the 1988 charter (The charter with anti-Semitic values), which was replaced by the 2017 charter (The charter without anti-Semitic values), so I don't think you read the full article. Also, even though I get the point, Wikipedia should be a neutral website, and the western world favors Zionism, so I'm pretty sure biases for Zionists exist in western media. As of the secondary sources, I really don't know, but, at the same time, reneging Wikipedia's promise of unbiased articles is not the solution either. Therefore, please either remove "anti-Semitism" from the infobox, or edit "anti-Semitism" into "anti-Semitism (officially denied)". 37.39.161.59 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Crossroads, why haven't you responded? 37.39.161.59 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

"Overview"

By what right does the overview, a secondary mini lede, exist? Should be removed and the entire article's prose reduced, seems over-explanatory at several points, including, for example, while discussing the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikilink waqf where it is first used

The second use of "waqf" is wikilinked. The first is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.46.48 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine as unreliable source.

Tablet Magazine is clearly a partisan source which has been reporting unverified events over the past few days, for example quoting unnamed sources as evidence of mass rape in the Hamas attack on the music festival and claiming direct Iranian involvement, both claims that have not been corroborated by further sources. I think a wikipedia article should avoid making such weighty claims without there being forceful evidence to back them up. 2A00:23C4:79C7:B001:3D85:D6C5:7378:ACD2 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if they are biased, this does not disqualify them per WP:BIAS. As to your examples, I'm not sure they tell us anything about the magazine's reliability. Can you show reliable sources which contradict these accounts? Alaexis_¿question? 19:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Can you show reliable sources which contradict these accounts?"

In what world is this the standard for a claim? Regardless, The article's writer spoke to a person who claims to have watched a video in which no rape occurs, and no note of any indication rape has or will occur. This is the source of the claim that mass rape occurred. 2603:7080:3801:2C18:B935:7321:CA06:A565 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I, too, read the Tablet article referred to, and did not find it to be a very convincing source for the claim (I have no familiarity with the magazine itself, no prejudice toward it one way or the other). Further, I thought it was an odd, jarring interjection at that point in the Wikipedia article; even if true, it seemed purposefully inflammatory. Seems like it belongs much later, if at all. 2601:183:201:E2D0:EC87:A39D:BE34:CEC (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIAS is not a Guideline. This is the official WP guideline concerning bias: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Tablet is an extremely biased pro-Israel source. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that mass rape, or any rape, of victims in Israel occurred. This statement and source should be deleted immediately. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Mashallah brother 77.138.64.44 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I came here to report the same claim and its source. There is zero evidence that any victim in Israel has been raped. The Tablet source is at the very least, double hearsay. Person A conveyed they watched someone else’s video (Person B) (that does not show rape) and told Person C and they told the “reporter” at Tablet. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. That website is preposterous as a source, especially for such a serious claim placed in a prominent position in a contentious article. The magazine in question clearly has a strong pro-Israel bias and the blog entry itself provides zero evidence for its claims. 136.54.91.222 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Same claim here also 67.11.15.25 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point this discussion is moot as there are plenty of other media outlets that wrote that survivors said that women were raped (Marca The Times). We should be careful with wording here and not say that it happened in wikivoice, but rather that this is what survivors report. Alaexis_¿question? 07:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived - unrestricted access - version of Times article: https://archive.li/tTcE1. Mcljlm (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"survivors said that women were raped" Big surprise there. Wartime sexual violence is never rare in conflicts of every era, and is nearly synonymous with gang rape. Vae victis (woe to the vanquished), or "those defeated in battle are entirely at the mercy of their conquerors". Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Since other sources been mentioned perhaps this section's title should be changed to Rape reports, or something similar. Mcljlm (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

https://forward.com/news/564318/sexual-assault-rape-proof-hamas-idf-israel-gaza/ "Biden, Netanyahu, celebrities and columnists have rushed to condemn rape. But the IDF does not yet have any evidence it happened" Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas Website

The Hamas website is not working for me. I need someone else to try on something that is not microsoft edge and see if it works. If it does not then maybe consider removing it 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:5F4:B596:782B:FB2C (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas Website

The Hamas website is not working for me. I need someone else to try on something that is not microsoft edge and see if it works. If it does not then maybe consider removing it 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:5F4:B596:782B:FB2C (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is a terror organization

As stated in the article, most of the Western governments: including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and many others declared that Hamas is a terror organization.

Saturday's massacre, in which hundreds of innocent unarmed civilians were murdered and kidnapped, including toddlers, proves that Hamas is a terror organization. This must be written in black on white in the article's introduction - Hamas is a terror organization.

Many horrifying videos of the massacre were published by Hamas. Meaning they were proud of murdering all of those innocent human beings. They published the videos because they thought that there was public support for such acts. Not willing to mention loud and clear that Hamas is a terror organization public support for Hamas that encourages them to keep murdering innocent lives.

We must not look around but state as clearly as possible: Hamas is a terror organization. Do it. This is the human thing to do. Yonathan33 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Western countries are supporters of Israel. They are not unbiased. Hamas certainly uses uncouth tactics, but so does the IDF. 128.189.114.118 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Provisional Irish Republican Army article offers, in my opinion, persuasive precedent for how we should use the term. It discusses who designated it, and the fact news orgs routinely referred to the PIRA as "terrorist" while maintaining a neutral point of view by avoiding using the label in the narrative voice. Yr Enw (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As described in MOS:TERRORIST. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It was now published that in the Kfar Aza massacre, 40 bodies of children were found, some of them were beheaded. You can't, by any means, even try to justify this horrific attack. Hamas is a terror group. Most western countries declared Hamas as a terror organizition, and they are not "biased", they say the truth. Countries that praise Hamas and refuse to call it terror group are usually dictatorships that murder their own people. There is no way that an orgnaization that did all of those horrors will not be label as terroist. The article should start "Hamas is a terror orgnization" because this is the truth. Yonathan33 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody in this section has justified it. You've got to detach labelling something terrorism from thinking something is bad. They are not the same. Yr Enw (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims". Murdering hundreds of innocent civilians in the name of Islam is terrorism. Hamas is a terror orgnization. Yonathan33 (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Murdering hundreds of innocent civilians in the name of Israeli self-defence could also, then, be called terrorism? It's intentional violence and fear to achieve political aims. And see how we've got nowhere? There's little point continuing this discussion because the content of the wiki article isn't about our opinions or feelings, it's about presenting what people are saying. And, before I am accused of it, in no way do I think the recent actions of Hamas are in any way justified or acceptable. Yr Enw (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yr Enw, Israel doesn't murder innocent civilians. Collateral damage is not murder. It's a regrettable yet often unavoidable byproduct of conducting a functional miliary operation, particularly when an adversary embeds itself among civilians to deliberately use them as human shields. That's quite different from infiltrating a residential home that has no military value and cutting the head off of infant in its crib. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I do have to question though. We already have hundreds of reliable sources worldwide forming a consensus, and thousands of images and videos showing them executing children and kidnapping people. At what point do we label an organization a terror organization? According to you Yr Enw, it is never, which is against the guidelines in MOS:TERRORIST. I think it is finally time to make the shift. Bar Harel (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The point at which we label them a terror organization is the point at which the term "terror organization" becomes a neutral descriptor and not simply a term used for its persuasive or emotional rhetorical effect. The term has a troublingly vague definition in my opinion, but a definition nonetheless.

To use the Russo-Ukrainian war as an analogy: We've seen disturbing, brutal, and almost definitely illegal tactics being used by Russia. They've been labeled "atrocities" and increasingly more public figures are describing Russia's aggression as "genocide."

Now, with that said, imagine if the Wikipedia page for Russia described a "terror organization." What exactly would that accomplish? 2603:7081:1603:A300:909A:E3A9:FF32:C558 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Fateh magazine

This section is not supported by sufficiently reliable sources to clearly substantiate either the direct link of this publication to Hamas or its other claims. The only sources present are highly partisan ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Repetitive wording on ongoing Hamas conflict

The word “operation” is used repetitively:

”Hamas launched a major operation against Israel, considered one of the largest operations against Israel…” Travis2626 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Calling Hamas a "terrorist" organization

Consensus for this has not been established in the discussions, yet someone changed the lead sentence to describe Hamas (as a matter of fact) as a terrorist organization. Clearly violation of MOS:TERRORIST. 128.189.114.118 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Has this been reversed? I can't see any mention of the word in the lead Yr Enw (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, It indeed has been reverted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Jokes aside, Boko Haram is described as a terrorist organization without their sympathizers allowed to derail the obvious truth of the label (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram)

Other than this page having some very dedicated arabs/muslims, it's unclear to me how the label doesn't apply to HAMAS. They are an organization that deliberately targets civilians with the purpose of forcing a political outcome. They are recognized as a terrorist organization by most governments that care to comment on the matter.

I know you aren't going to change anything but I'm curious what is the stated justification for avoiding the label.

And if you're only going to answer once, please don't bother with the "some people say Israel is a terrorist country" trope. There is no evidence that the Israeli government deliberately targets civilians. 77.138.64.44 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Boko Haram is orders of magnitude worse than Hamas. There is also no reasonable viewpoint which could argue Boko Haram is a resistance organization, whereas reasonable people can argue Hamas is a resistance argument against alleged apartheid. This is just not an appropriate comparison. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:241B:BEAA:C39C:1DD (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Both boko haram and hamas target civilians which make both terrorist organizations.

both sanitize their actions by couching them in the language of western social justice groups.

boko haram believe they are resisting Shia colonialism and oppression by the Nigerian government.

no one takes these claims seriously because both sides of the conflict are black and poor so social justice doesn’t have the tools to tell us who the “good guys” are.

Hamas and boko haram are qualitatively the same. 77.138.64.44 (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

The article mentions a military campaign that Hamas waged against Israel on October 7th, making it sound like normal military battles between two countries while what Hamas did is not a normal military campaign but they infiltrated a music festival and murdered and kidnapped hundreds of unarmed youngsters and then infiltrated homes and did the same to babies, elderly and others. That is not a military campaign but a massacre and Wikipedia should update otherwise Wikipedia is supporting terrorism 2A12:A9C0:F4:0:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are the sources? 37.39.187.158 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Read the editreq "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it" and then supply RS to back up the request. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

History of Hamas edit war

The history section of this article is linking to History of Hamas, but there's an edit war going in the History of Hamas article and the history article is not protected unlike this one. Nakonana (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, now the article is protected. That was quick. Thanks and sorry for bringing it up on this talk page instead of the other, but I don't know how to initiate a protection request and thought I'd likely get the necessary attention here to make it happen. Nakonana (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nakonana: In future, the place to ask for protection is WP:RFPP. I suspect that there will be no shortage of articles that will need protection in the near-future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

More recent polling data for Palestinian views on Hamas

There is an old link in the article showing that 50%+ of Palestinians believe that Hamas is the most deserving party of representing the Palestinian people, but a new poll was released in September showing support for Hamas is only about 30% (see Section 3 of link). The poll was conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research which is the same body cited by the AP in the Hamas article. Can someone with clearance please update the first sentence of the third paragraph to reflect this? Wschreyer (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wschreyer: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia thanks! I just double-checked and for some reason it looks like your edit was already taken down? I confirmed it appeared in the article shortly after your reply. Wschreyer (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia nevermind it's back up. Wschreyer (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

What's the consenus on this rollback? I don't think the edit summary "reverted unexplained edits" is particularly reasonable, given that most edits they were reverting had clearly explained rationales in edit summaries. The main change appears to be the restoration of the criticism section, which @Iskandar323: had largely moved to a separate article, which I do not have a strong opinion about. I don't think the reversion of the lead section to the old version was an improvement. I don't really feel I can edit the lead because that might be construed as a violation of the 1RR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The edits remove notable information about the organization for apparently no reason, @Hemiauchenia:.

Compare the original version here to the revised one here.

The original:

is a Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist and militant organization in Palestine.

becomes:

is an Islamic political and military organization that currently governs the Gaza Strip, one of the two Palestinian territories, the other being the West Bank.

Similar problematic changes occur throughout. The article's quality gets significantly downgraded. KlayCax (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This honestly doesn't seem that problematic of a change to me (though I don't have a strong opinion about either version) "fundamentalism" is pretty vague, and their ideology is better explained further down in the lead. To be honest, looking through most of the changes you reverted they seemed to have improved the article rather than degraded it, or to have at least not really detracted from it. Your rollback also removed notable information about the organization for apparently no reason, like the mention of the massacres during the recent conflict at Hamas#Attacks_on_civilians, and the recent polling numbers of the organisation among Palestinians [1]. Ultimately, this article is probably going to be heavily edited for the duration of this war, and you aren't going to be able to mass-rollback to your preferred version everytime that somebody makes an edit that you don't like. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't mean to come across as hostile. @Hemiauchenia:. I hope you didn't interpret the rollback that way. It was primary focused on the wording of the lead — not the body — although I also feel that some of the information retained by @Iskandar323: should be maintained within the article. That's all. Sunni Islamic fundamentalist is what Hamas is described as in the academic literature.

"Islamic" has been used - like Unitarianism or sede Catholicism within "Christianity" - to describe a whole variety of widely varying beliefs. That's why I have a strong preference for the first version. Would you be okay with "Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist" or something similar being restored into the article? It feels to me like a dramatic loss of information to simply label the organization as simply such. KlayCax (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions about the opening sentence, I'm personally fine with either version, though I see that you were rollbacked again, which means that you can't revert again without being over the 1RR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A basic summary has been left in the criticism section alongside the link, but anyone is free to expand that summary from the page on the child article. However, the split was very much explained and its reasons obvious, and in fact, the page is arguably still too long (at 95kB readable prose) and in need of further trimming - though simple cuts to the already split history section may be the easiest route for this. Given that we have now already been presented with the irony of a combination of a revert summary citing inadequate explanation and edits with no edit summary, as highlighted in the summary of the revert of the revert, I would highly recommend pre-emptive dialogue on talk as a more collegiate route for any further discussion of recent changes moving forward. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Between the two lead statements, past and present, the second clearly provides more core information, and Hamas' governance of the Gaza Strip is clearly core information that should be in the first sentence per MOS:LEAD, so I would say it's an improvement. This fact is basically central to everything that is going on now, and the reason why the collective punishment of Gaza is being rhetorically justified. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Classification by the Organization of American States

From a purely technical point of view, I kindly ask for someone with clearance to remove the OAS from the list of countries/organizations that have classified Hamas as a terrorist organization.

From the sources pointed in the article, one can see that such “classification” was actually just a statement from the Secretary-General of the Organization to the press. There is no official document from the Secretariat establishing this.

In fact, the reason for this is that the Secretary-General can’t actually do that. Such formal declaration has to come not from the Secretary-General, but from the General Assembly, through a Resolution, since that’s the organ responsible for any decisions regarding the policy of the Organization and its relations with other states, per article 54.a and 112.h of the Charter of the OAS.

Imagine that Antonio Guterres gave a statement today condemning Hamas and saying that it’s a terrorist organization, would that be enough to edit the article in order for it to display that the UN classifies Hamas as such? I firmly believe it wouldn’t, since the General Assembly has never managed to pass a Resolution on it. To keep things coherent, the same standard should be applied to the OAS’ position.

All in all, I’d deeply appreciate if anyone allowed to edit removes OAS from the list on the grounds I exposed. Thanks very much! Hookko27 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Well observed. Yes, the source is merely a call by the Secretary-General for the designation, not proof that such a designation was ever made. The other source then just conveniently omitted this. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This has recently been added back, I'm at my 1RR for today, so would someone else consider removing it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Using Sources that Postdate Terrorist Designation

The sentence: "However, the group's usage of human shields, methods of hostage taking, and history of violence against non-combatants, including massacres of civilian populations, has led to many Western countries and allied nations designating it as a terrorist organization" uses sources that postdate the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The current conflict should be kept separate from previous conflicts that caused the terrorist designation. Gurgle528 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why the chronology matters here. It's not about when the source was published, but about the contents of the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the publish date, I'm referring to the date of the events in the sources. The date of the events in the source (Oct 2023) postdate the designation as a terrorist organization by 10-20+ years. Gurgle528 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gurgle528: Do you have any better sources in mind then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I think the sentence needs to be changed as it's not accurate. The US DNI does not mention any of the above events happening in the 90s when the US designated it as an FTO. The UK designation, updated in 2021, does not make any mention of anything I listed in the first message either. Canada's listing only mentions suicide bombings and was in 2002. Are you able to find any sources justifying the sentence? Gurgle528 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

So why don't we replace the above sentence with what the sources do mention: "The group's attacks against Israel, including large-scale bombings against civilian targets and small arms attacks, lead Western nations to ..."VR _talk 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I’d also mention the rocket attacks as it was a major reason as well Gurgle528 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Do any sources from the 1990s say that, or do any current sources say that rocket attacks in the 1990s (did they even happen back then?) is why Hamas was designated as terrorist? VR _talk 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

2018 UN resolution

Does anyone know where to find the full text of the failed 2018 UN general assembly resolution regarding Hamas rocket attacks? It's unclear to me about whether it specifically mentions the word "terrorist/terrorism". Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is it: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1654199?ln=en

The document mentions "acts of terror" but according to the UN Press, Nikki Haley introduced it as one of the "ugliest cases of terrorism in the world": https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12101.doc.htm Gurgle528 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 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 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Curry7524 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist designation table

This table has several issues, but the principle issue is that it seemingly contains a lot of information that has nothing to do with its designation (as a terrorist group or otherwise). I have removed a series of vacuous entries that simply repeat the results of a UN resolution vote on a terrorist designation for Hamas - this material was vacuous because not designating any group as terrorist in nature is the default position of all countries, and also voting against such a motion could mean a number of things not necessarily specific to the group, including general objections to the language, wording or premise of a resolution. Other odd information includes details about, e.g., the Taliban supplying weapons to Hamas - this is presumably intended to imply a degree of alliance, but it is actually unrelated directly to their designation of the group - so is this a table about the group's designation, or a more general table about its friends and foes? That's just one example. There is also the issue of the lack of any key to explain the colour-coding system, forcing readers to deduce the schema by first reading the table. This either needs expounding with a key that actually explains what the table's criteria are, or the table needs splitting into clearer individual tables for actual designations, supporters, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't have any issues if the table is just removed, or trimmed to only include countries designating it a terrorist organisation. It's already covered at List of designated terrorist groups regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I was not in fact aware of that list, but yes, that is definitely an infinitely more condensed and clear form of presentation of the actually pertinent information on the subject. I suppose the 'non-designation' material could potentially be moved to the support section or converted into some prose about 'relations'. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

The current page removed the following, which provided important context:

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]

Why was this removed? Please restore. 2603:7000:37F0:6C00:8CCB:DABC:16D7:D467 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

wanted to bump this up. Can someone with editing rights put this back in? Why was it removed? 2603:7000:37F0:6C00:8417:1785:79E6:3FBE (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

2017 statement on Israel

An editor tried to place in the article this sentence in lead:

In 2017, Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but continued to not recognize Israel.

Whether it actually does this is disputed. Several commentators have argued that this is merely a case of word games.

In fact, the new document differs little from its predecessor. Much like the original, the new document asserts Hamas’s long-standing goal of establishing a sovereign, Islamist Palestinian state that extends, according to Article 2, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Lebanese border to the Israeli city of Eilat—in other words, through the entirety of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. And it is similarly unequivocal about “the right of return” of all Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars (Article 12)—which is portrayed as “a natural right, both individual and collective,” divinely ordained and “inalienable.” That right, therefore “cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international,” thus again rendering negotiations or efforts to achieve any kind of political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians irrelevant, void, or both. Article 27 forcefully reinforces this point: “There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.”

This is a clear WP: NPOV and WP: Weight issue. KlayCax (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you are violating WP:DUE by removing such a widely discussed aspect of Hamas from the lead. As per WP:NPOV, all significant viewpoints must be included, and below I provide 16 sources that state in 2017 Hamas accepted the 1967 borders.

10 news sources that indicate Hamas accepted the 1967 borders

• NBC News[2]: "For decades, Hamas called for the destruction of Israel. In 2017, 30 years after its founding, the group issued a new charter that appeared to stop short of that goal. The document, known as the Hamas 2017 charter, was the first time the group had shown a willingness to accept a Palestinian state that would fall within the borders that existed in 1967, consisting of the West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem."
• Al-Jazeera[3]: "Hamas has presented a new political document that accepts the formation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, without recognising the statehood of Israel".
• The Independent[4]: "However, since 2017, Hamas has said it accepts a Palestinian state shaped around the borders of 1967, which existed prior to the war in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip..."
• The Guardian [5]: "n the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”. By implication, the document accepts that there will be another state entity outside these borders, even if it does not mention Israel."
• Reuters[6] "Palestinian Islamist group Hamas supports the establishment of a transitional Palestinian state along the borders from 1967, its leader Khaled Meshaal said on Monday."
• RAND corporation[7]: "The major takeaway is that Hamas is open, at least in principle, to accepting the 1967 borders of a Palestinian state..."
• Wall Street Journal[8]: "Hamas is dedicated to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It has signaled it is willing to accept a two-state solution based on borders that existed before 1967, but in recent years friction with Israel has steadily grown."
• PBS[9]: In what observers called an attempt to moderate its image, Hamas presented a new document [PDF] in 2017 that accepted an interim Palestinian state along the “Green Line” border established before the Six-Day War but that still refused to recognize Israel.
• India Today[10]: "The organization's 1988 charter called for the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine, covering the entirety of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. However, a 2017 policy document suggests a more nuanced stance, acknowledging the possibility of an interim Palestinian state based on 1967 borders."
• Deutsche Welle[11]:"In a new charter announced earlier this year, Hamas dropped its wording of "destroying" Israel and said it would recognize a Palestinian state within the borders created by the 1967 Arab-Israeli war."

Besides the above, there are 6 scholarly sources that also say this, and these constitute the highest quality of sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

6 scholarly sources that say Hamas accepted the 1967 borders

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

So removing this from the lead is wrong. VR _talk 01:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Other academic sources are also skeptical of the statement, however. Stating it unqualified in the lead is heavily problematic. KlayCax (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have post-2017 academic sources please provide them below. I'm open to compromise on the wording, but I don't want it be a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR _talk 02:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I added a more qualified statement "Many scholars reported that Hamas' 2017 charter accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders".VR _talk 04:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (2)

2001:16A4:14:FFAF:B583:5EFD:B6F8:478D (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove anti-semitisim Anti-israel (colonial state) is not anti semitism .dangerous mistake

Was Hamas originally tacitly supported by Israeli intelligence?

So, on page 121 of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim Mahmood Mamdani wrote, "until events proved the foolhardiness of the project, Israel hoped to encourage an Islamist political movement in the Occupied Territories and play it off against the secular nationalism of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli intelligence allowed Hamas to operate unhindered during the first intifada - letting it open a university and bank accounts and even possibly helping it with funding - only to confront Hamas in the second intifada." It is sometimes alleged that Israeli intelligence propped up Hamas to more or less avoid having to follow through with the peace process. I don't know that I would go so far, but I am curious if there isn't more information about this. I know that Mamdani also alleges for Abdullah Yusuf Azzam to have been supported by the Central Intelligence Agency back in those days. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

You should state that Hamas is an extreme terror group that supports burning of living civilians, children, beheading of them, raping and kidnapping them. Calling them a liberation front or militants is like calling the Nazi Party “The Hippie Peace and Love Society”.

I’m sure you won’t change a thing in the Wiki page.. but this antisemitism and terror is a thing IDF will stop soon. You can add that 2023 is the last year of Hamas. 2601:8D:8702:ECF0:544C:3B0:7D6E:C1A7 (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources to support the change please. Seawolf35 (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair to the IP, I don't think that they need to be called "freedom fighters" in the lead, but I don't think the rest of the complaint has much validity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia I would rather not change it myself since this is very touchy right now. Seawolf35 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should Hamas be described as accepting the 1967 Israeli borders in the lead?

Editors have recently gone back and forth in describing the ideology of Hamas in the lead. This is likely due to the fact that academic sources, popular media, and statements on/from Hamas have widely varied over the decades. Early Hamas statements explicitly called for the destruction of (at least the current conception) Israel. While statements past-2017 have been more ambiguous. While some academic sources take them on their word, others express doubts on whether the 2017 statement actually changed anything.

• Option #1: Hamas is predominately described as supporting the end of Israel within the article. Statements post-2017 are treated with significant skepticism.
• Option #2: Both the 1988 and 2017 statements are left outside of the lead; lead doesn't state either. The article gives relatively equal weight to those who believe there has been a changed in the goals of Hamas and those who do not.
• Option #3: Hamas is predominately described as accepting the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders, post 2017. Early viewpoints are significantly trimmed from the article.
• Option #4: Another option not listed.

I'm personally in favor of #2. What do people here believe is the best solution in resolving this?

#2. (Note: Creator of RFC) Since there hasn't been a clear consensus in the academic literature, news media sources, among other things, we shouldn't definitely state one or the other. KlayCax (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, an RFC question should be simple and neutral. I suggest you change it to something simple like "Should the lead include Hamas' acceptance of the 1967 borders?"VR _talk 05:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There's multiple wways that we can phrase it within the article. The RFC is about whether it should be stated in Wikivoice.

In my opinion, saying that they "accepted the 1967 borders" is disputable and thus shouldn't be in the lead, as multiple reliable sources have directly contradicted the interpretation that they did. KlayCax (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are a lot of WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP who believe that Hamas' 2017 constituted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, I put these sources in the section below for analysis. If there are dissenting voices they should be examined and we should give WP:BALANCE accordingly.VR _talk 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Vice regent It would be very helpful if you yourself could compile a similar number of scholarly and other RS on the opposing side of this discussion.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Bruce Hoffman isn't a random OP-ed writer. He's a well-known expert in the field.

  Even many of the sources listed by vice regent give significant doubt to their claims, @RadioactiveBoulevardier:.

  Others have also expressed doubt about what the wording of the 2017 statement actually meant. (e.g. You could interpret it to mean.)

  It's generally interpreted as saying that:

  • Palestine includes Gaza and the West Bank
  • It is left unspecified rather the rest is Israeli or Palestinian

  Many have argued that this is just a form of word games. A fact that even many of the sources below state. NBC says "appeared", Rand Corporation says "at least in principle", and Wall Street Journal seems entirely doubtful, saying that it was "an attempt to moderate its image" while "still [refusing] to recognize Israel". The academic sources itself are almost always prefaced with a notion of skepticism to whether their position has changed. Just that you could interpret the statement that way.

  Michael Milshtein also expresses skepticism of whether there has actually been any moderation in their position:

  Although, Ben, you need to remember this offensive was planned a year ago. All talks about negotiations between us and the Saudis began only two, three months ago. It’s absolutely clear that the basic reasons for this brutal attack was not the Al-Aqsa Mosque, or the war in the West Bank, or the economic situation in Gaza, or the Saudi-Israeli negotiations. It was much deeper. It was a part of the long-term vision of Hamas to eradicate Israel...Absolutely. In order to understand Hamas, you have to know Arabic, and you have to read things in Arabic and listen to Hamas preachers and Hamas leaders when they speak to their own people. It’s absolutely different from the things that are translated to us in Hebrew or English. For two years, I read all those books, and articles, and interviews, and it was absolutely clear for me that Hamas is not ready at all to give up on the jihad for permits, for workers, or for any other economic gesture from Israel.

  Simply prefacing it uncritically in the lead without any context is a giant issue of WP: Weight. Especially considering how the ambiguous statement is.

  The action that most fits WP: NPOV is #2. Explaining how each side interprets the 2017 statement while not promoting one opinion in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Option 2 goes against policy for two reasons. The more sources we quote here, whether for or against, the more clear it becomes this is a major that RS cover. Which means that we must give it prominence in lead, whatever the wording might be.

  Second thus far, the overwhelming majority of sources presented in this RFC seem to favor that Hamas did accept the 1967 borders in 2017. The idea that it didn't seems to be the minority view based (unless more sources to the contrary are provided). VR _talk 17:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also Michael Milshtein is a former member of the Israeli military, which is not an wp:independent source on Hamas given their state of war (just Hamas is not a reliable source on Israel). VR _talk 20:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just wish to point that Al Jazeera, used widely in this article, is also not a NPOV. They are a media outlet of the Qatari government, a financial backer and heavy supporter of Hamas. Bar Harel (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  For the purposes of this RfC you can see that I have used 9 other news sources that are not Al-Jazeera and also used 6 academic sources. VR _talk 01:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Furthermore, there are sources that point out Hamas tacitly accepted the 1967 borders before 2017. For example, in 2009 a Hamas leader told the UN he accepts the 1967 borders[12]. Similarly, Leila Seurat, a researcher at School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences who wrote a whole book on Hamas' foreign policy points out that Hamas tacitly accepted this position when it signed various agreements with Fatah from 2005 to 2012 (including Palestinian Cairo Declaration, Palestinian Prisoners' Document and Fatah–Hamas Mecca Agreement). I have not seen any sources cast skepticism on this position.VR _talk 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Option #3: The source analyses below make plain that the position of Hamas has shifted/gained nuance in the last decade. The article should reflect the organisation's current positions, while of course noting its past positions. However, Wikipedia pages should be up-to-date and not simply mausoleums of undue history. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's true. But the present wording strongly implies that there has a definite, irrefutable change within the organization's foreign policy and agenda. That's heavily disputed among reliable source.

Many have argued that their true position hasn't changed at all. Even the ones being used to "support" the notion express significant skepticism of their position. KlayCax (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Many sources below have mentioned their changed position. But is it accepting the state of Israel as-is, implicitly or explicitly, or accepting only the 1967 boundary without mentioning Israel? Senorangel (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Senorangel: just to clarify no one tried to insert in the article that "Hamas recognizes Israel", that's not what this RFC is about.

But to answer your question, Hamas definitely doesn't explicitly recognize Israel. They explicitly only recognized the 1967 borders. However, in the section below you can see some scholars who believe that this implied recognition. For example, Brenner says "While not explicitly saying what would be on the other side of [1967] borders, this nevertheless acknowledged the existence of another entity there." Likewise Zartman says "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." VR _talk 20:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 4 Past and recent positions should both be described in the lead. Senorangel (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Source analysis 1

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

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

VR _talk 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Source analysis 2

Here are 10 news sources that indicate Hamas accepted the 1967 borders.

• NBC News[13]: "For decades, Hamas called for the destruction of Israel. In 2017, 30 years after its founding, the group issued a new charter that appeared to stop short of that goal. The document, known as the Hamas 2017 charter, was the first time the group had shown a willingness to accept a Palestinian state that would fall within the borders that existed in 1967, consisting of the West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem."
• Al-Jazeera[14]: "Hamas has presented a new political document that accepts the formation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, without recognising the statehood of Israel".
• The Independent[15]: "However, since 2017, Hamas has said it accepts a Palestinian state shaped around the borders of 1967, which existed prior to the war in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip..."
• The Guardian [16]: "n the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”. By implication, the document accepts that there will be another state entity outside these borders, even if it does not mention Israel."
• Reuters[17] "Palestinian Islamist group Hamas supports the establishment of a transitional Palestinian state along the borders from 1967, its leader Khaled Meshaal said on Monday."
• RAND corporation[18]: "The major takeaway is that Hamas is open, at least in principle, to accepting the 1967 borders of a Palestinian state..."
• Wall Street Journal[19]: "Hamas is dedicated to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It has signaled it is willing to accept a two-state solution based on borders that existed before 1967, but in recent years friction with Israel has steadily grown."
• PBS[20]: In what observers called an attempt to moderate its image, Hamas presented a new document [PDF] in 2017 that accepted an interim Palestinian state along the “Green Line” border established before the Six-Day War but that still refused to recognize Israel.
• India Today[21]: "The organization's 1988 charter called for the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine, covering the entirety of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. However, a 2017 policy document suggests a more nuanced stance, acknowledging the possibility of an interim Palestinian state based on 1967 borders."
• Deutsche Welle[22]:"In a new charter announced earlier this year, Hamas dropped its wording of "destroying" Israel and said it would recognize a Palestinian state within the borders created by the 1967 Arab-Israeli war."

VR _talk 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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."[23]. 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)

• 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)

References

Hamas should be defined as terror organization

They slaughtered thousands of children, babies, women, old people, holocaust survivors. Cut their heads, raped them. Hamas should be defined as a terror organization, nothing less than that. 85.250.40.182 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. This article notes which nations recognize Hamas or parts of it as a terrorist organization. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What evidence do you need in order to call them a terror organization? Like Isis 85.250.40.182 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

My personal view is not relevant. We go by the sources; as I said, this article already notes which nations have designated Hamas or parts of it as a terror organization. Other nations- rightly or wrongly- disagree or choose to say nothing. Until there is a broader consensus, that's what we do. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

From the wsj “TEL AVIV—Written orders carried by Hamas fighters sent to attack Israeli towns and settlements last weekend contained the same chilling command: Kill as many people as possible.” (https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-orders-kill-as-many-people-as-possible-2a6abff8?mod=mhp)

the definition of terrorism is targeting civilians with violence to achieve a political goal.

If HAMAS doesn’t qualify after deliberately murdering and kidnapping women and children, we should probably just deprecate the term as archaic since it can only be applied to groups leftists don’t like 77.138.64.44 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no universal or legal definition of terrorism, because what is terrorism depends on the viewpoint. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This has nothing to do with "leftists". Personally I don't disagree with you, but for Wikipedia to use that word in Wikipedia's voice you would need to show that the preponderance of reliable sources use that word to describe Hamas. See MOS:TERRORIST. Also see this BBC article as to why they don't use the term(for similar reasons). 331dot (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a broader consensus. 2A0D:6FC0:BAC:6300:8DA2:B6D2:E32E:A578 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Also see MOS:TERRORIST. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for that? the claim of "Killing babies" was proven to be misinformations. And there aren't any live (video) footages for it as Gaza massacres have. MonCefSharp (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Mashallah my ESL brother. Much misinformations. 77.138.64.44 (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (2)

Hamas is as terrorist group. 2605:59C8:40ED:8700:559:AFE0:667F:ACD6 (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced. See MOS:TERRORIST Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the guidelines it requires reliable sources. There are plenty. I'm here since 2008 already, and it's the first time I've been actively frustrated with Wikipedia, especially after viewing those disturbing images from reliable sources myself. Bar Harel (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Bharel If there are "plenty", please offer them. This article already states which nations consider Hamas to be a terror organization. Much like the BBC, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter(even today the Irish government doesn't term the IRA terrorists), so the preponderance of sources do not use the word terrorism- you would need to show that they do in order to use that word in Wikipedia's voice Personally I don't disagree with you- but that's Wikipedia policy. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

“Freedom fighter”. This site is laughable. Doesn’t even follow its own rules. If you don’t want to call them terrorists, find sources that state they aren’t. You can’t. 2605:B100:100:F025:3D25:1EB3:5837:CE75 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works, you need to find sources that affirmatively state your claim. You're right, there are no sources to prove a negative. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Change the lead to mention the fact that they are a terrorist group. There is no reason for this not to be done. It was the long-standing descriptor used here with no problem until the Wikipedia admins took control of the page, removed the term to favour their own opinions, and automatically reject any mention of it. There is no evidence to suggest they are not a terrorist group. How much more terrorism do they need to commit? The bias on this site is so out of control and so blatant, it’s disgusting. You want reliable sources? Look them up. They are everywhere and use that exact term. 2605:B100:100:F025:3D25:1EB3:5837:CE75 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus for this change. It was the long-standing descriptor used here with no problem until the Wikipedia admins took control of the page is false, looking at the history of this article, it has never been long-standing to describe Hamas as a "terrorist" group in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Radical Sunni Islamist

The lead currently says that Hamas is a "Sunni Islamist" militant group, but someone added "radical Sunni Islamist" militant group. Firstly, what's the difference and what's the definition of "radical" in this context?

Secondly are there a lot of sources that say Hamas meets that particular definition?VR _talk 19:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

Please mention in the first paragraph that HAMAS is a terror organisation!!!! It has been recognised as one by the UN and there really is no other way to describe an organisation that kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered hundreds of innocent civilians, including children. Please be on the right side of history here. They are no different from ISIS. 93.173.94.73 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussions above on this topic. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas financed by Qatar with support of Netanyahu governments

Haaretz writes in a recent article "Why Did Netanyahu Want to Strengthen Hamas?": "Between 2012 and 2018, Netanyahu gave Qatar approval to transfer a cumulative sum of about a billion dollars to Gaza, at least half of which reached Hamas, including its military wing. According to the Jerusalem Post, in a private meeting with members of his Likud party on March 11, 2019, Netanyahu explained the reckless step as follows: The money transfer is part of the strategy to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Anyone who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the transfer of the money from Qatar to Hamas. In that way, we will foil the establishment of a Palestinian state (as reported in former cabinet member Haim Ramon’s Hebrew-language book “Neged Haruach”, p. 417).". https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000 Former PM Ehud Olmert reports that "Hamas was financed with the assistance of Israel - for years - by hundreds of millions of Dollars that came from Qatar, with the assistance of the state of Israel, with the full knowledge and support of the Israeli government led by Netanyahu. Netanyahu when he took over in 2009, said that his primary responsibility and priority is to destroy Hamas. And throughout the period he was prime minister, he made every possible effort, in order to build Hamas rather than to destroy it. And in a certain way the expansion of Hamas and the strengthening of Hamas is largely also a result of this policy of Netanyahu." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uar3I_LUSyM&t=671s As this is absolutely crucial information regarding the organization of Hamas, I think the following should be added at the introduction of the article: "Hamas has been financed by Qatar with the knowledge and support of Netanyahu governments. Between 2012 and 2018 about a billion US-Dollars were approved by Netanyahu and at least half a billion reached Hamas, including its military wing." Haxtibel (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Archived Haaretz article, unrestricted access: https://archive.li/APxHn Mcljlm (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus before making an edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Terror organisation is missing from description

Why isn’t Hamas described as a terror organisation? In the very first lines. This is not a movement to free Palestin. They use citizens as a humen shield. They are being described all over the modern world as a terror organisation, Wikipedia, it’s time. 2A0D:6FC0:BAC:6300:8DA2:B6D2:E32E:A578 (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussions above on this topic, and offer reliable sources to demonstrate that the preponderance of reliable sources use that terminology. See MOS:TERRORIST. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023 (2)

The first sentence is missing the word “terrorist”. Add it. There is no clearer example of a terrorist group than what Hamas has done. Other articles call similar groups terrorists as well. World governments and sources you deem reliable describe this evil group as such. The site is not censored, so stop censoring words.

• https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-words-one-week-on-from-the-start-of-hamas-terrorist-attacks
• https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-expands-warning-over-pro-hamas-content-social-media-2023-10-11/
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/11/it-was-a-pogrom-beeri-survivors-horrific-attack-hamas-terrorists
• https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-debating-whether-to-call-hamas-militants-or-terrorists-a-waste-of-time 2605:B100:100:F025:3D25:1EB3:5837:CE75 (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This article already states that the UK considers Hamas a terrorist group. Some of these pieces are a start(like the Guardian), but you will need to show a much broader preponderance of sources.

See other stuff exists with regards to other articles. Those could be wrong, or those may have a preponderance of sources calling them that.

If you are unable to set aside your valid passion for this topic, and approach it dispassionately, this may not be the best topic for you to edit in. Personally I do not disagree with you, but we have to approach this based on the sources. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do not confuse censorship with editorial control and compliance with guidelines like MOS:TERRORIST. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus before making an edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023 (3)

Hamas wasn’t solely responsible for the “massacre”, people were possibly caught in crossfire (IDF & Hamas), and Yes possibly, cause neither truths were confirmed and there’s no need to lean towards Criminals (Isreal); some previously confirmed deaths in the “peace” festival, were later falsified - wikipedia is citing unconfirmed, Biased information. no massacre has occurred on the hands of Hamas, yet a gruesome massacre - a confirmed, ongoing GENOCIDE is being committed against Actual Innocent civilians, not SETTLERS, not foreigners who Chose to live in a FOREIGN Land, not criminals who lived in luxury while the people of land have been suffering endlessly.

Wikipedia shouldn’t show Any bias, instead show COMPLETE truth, without demonizing the people of the land, the Palestinians.

lastly, inaccurate translation from Arabic to English - showing Clear, shameful bias, probably written by the hands of Zionists.

no link included, cause neither did the current page include any links. blood is on your hands. Ddanaa (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus before making an edit request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Qatar funding of Hamas with support of Netanyahu governments

Former PM Ehud Olmert reports that "Hamas was financed with the assistance of Israel - for years - by hundreds of millions of Dollars that came from Qatar, with the assistance of the state of Israel, with the full knowledge and support of the Israeli government led by Netanyahu. Netanyahu when he took over in 2009, said that his primary responsibility and priority is to destroy Hamas. And throughout the period he was prime minister, he made every possible effort, in order to build Hamas rather than to destroy it. And in a certain way the expansion of Hamas and the strengthening of Hamas is largely also a result of this policy of Netanyahu." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uar3I_LUSyM&t=671s I think this, or at least parts of it, should be shown as a quote in the "Finances and funding" section, as it is crucial information brought by a former PM of Israel. Haxtibel (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly think it deserves some mention somewhere. Funding is fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas's name

>In Hebrew, there is a similar-sounding word, ḥāmās (חמס) connoting "violence",

It does not "connote" violence it "means" violence or theft.

This is purely an opinion/conjecture. Please remove:

>a phonetic resemblance that possibly helped further Israeli negative perceptions of the movement.

As the source says, "...abetted perhaps by its very name..." 74.64.100.6 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Support by Colombia's President Petro

Petro has rejected to denounce Hamas. Instead he has decided to call Israel a genocide state. Would this mean Petro in representation of Colombia supports Hamas; operation? Thanks

Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 00:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)