Talk:Fatah–Hamas conflict

Page history

User Kendric7 hasn't MOVED the page correctly from the old name. Here's the history that has been lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas-Fatah_conflict&action=history --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it didn't occur to me to merge, then move one over the other. Sorry, the fork started at Palestinian National Authority which had a whole section on the skirmishea without linking to the main article. I didn't realize until I scrolled down thru the current portal. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Commanders?

It seems kind of weird to have Abbas and Haniyeh listed as "commanders" in the infobox, as they aren't 'leading their troops' in the traditional sense of the phrase. I would support removing their names from the infobox. Thethinredline 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. If this does become a civil war with clear leaders on both sides, it would be a better fit. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be "a better fit" for this article. But it would be somewhat less convinient for the many who would be killed in the process. Abu ali 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Article name-date

Do we need the month and year as these are the first such clashes and here disambiguation isn't needed?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

also, I propose the name Palestinian factional violence. Like Iraqi sectarian violence. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This page should be moved

This page should be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Fatah/Hamas_tensions as it fits there better then starting a whole other Article. 24.226.128.164 16:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

better to merge the articlesAbu ali 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this page shouldn't be moved

This is separate armed conflict.

I agree.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is that at the moment this artical and the History of Fatah/Hamas tensionsartical duplicate each other, i propose we merge this artical into the December section of the History of Fatah/Hamas tensions--Boris Johnson VC 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you add the merge template to this page then Boris. Hut 8.5 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Second thoughts, I've done it myself. Hut 8.5 21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but these clashes are more notable than the overall tensions so this should be the main topic and page name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose move This article deserves its own topic and is its own armed conflict. Just as the wars between Egypt and Israel might fit into Arab-Israeli relations, so to does this conflict fit into another article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that this is a new conflict, it should have its own article. I would suggest removing "December 2006" from the name as this conflict statrted earlier and it might last longer. – Zntrip 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a new clash. It is an exclamation of an older clash that started when Hamas gained power. 69.114.71.250 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't cover each new clash which lasts a few days in an own article because of the lack of relevancy. Articles like Pileup at I-46 from January 2, 2007 don't make sense. (That would be rather for Wikinews. However, an article about the developments since the elections is usefull. (See below in a seperate edit some sources I've collected a couple of months back). --213.155.224.232 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Style

Please remove newspaper style like Tuesday night -- in a month or so we aren't aware of weekdays anymore. --62.227.135.168 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Page name

"Palestinian factional violence"? "Palestinian civil skirmishes"? Who came up with this page name? Since the press is calling this a civil war, wouldnt it make more sense to call it that? Or would that not be politically correct? KazakhPol 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

please source your statement, I doubt they call it like that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? KazakhPol 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please give a source calling this a civil war. I've only heard for "On the verge of civil war" --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's one:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6324677.stm--Ge Ming 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to meet the criteria to make the defination of civil war to me. There needs to be lines of control including check points among the parties to be a civil war. (e.g. English Civil War, American Civil War) Without this it's mearly sectional rioting. Jon 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing press use of civil war yet and I haven't found any recent discussion here about the page name change. To me this looks like someone trying to be bold. I think the previous title was more appropriate and would support changing it back until there is a concensus in outside media that this is a civil war. --StuffOfInterest 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, with current events, now "Fatah-Hamas Conflict" seems to weak a term, but "Civil War" would still be the wrong term since it was a "coup d'etat' Re: "Britain condemns Hamas 'coup d'etat' in Gaza" on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/06/15/afx3825449.html). And on CNN: "Hamas gunmen seize president's office" (http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/125061794/index.html) Jon 15:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's not a coup d'etat, in my opinion, is that it's not one power-climber and his followers, overthrowing an indvidual leader and leaving the rest of the government intact, but rather it's two separate factions stuggling, each with their own operatives, hierarchies, ideologies, and ethnic affiliations. thanks. --Sm8900 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, re-reading this article, and comparing with Battle of Gaza 2007, I've changed my mind since it's now apprent that only the portion of this dealing with Battle of Gaza 2007 is part of the Coup d'etat. So if we are going to keep these two articles seperate, then the current name for this one (Fatah-Hamas conflict) would be fine. Jon 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy's this is getting ridicilus

At the moment this artical and a History_of_Fatah/Hamas_tensions duplicate each other, i don't really care which is merged into which, but they really do need merging. P.S. This is espeshally the case after this articals name was changed. --Boris Johnson VC 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, it doesn't make sense to keep this seperated. --213.155.224.232 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• It would make more sense to merge History of Fatah-Hamas tensions into this article, as Palestinian factional violence is a more general topic, and if any other Palestinian factions start fighting they can be included in this article. Hut 8.5 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This page shouldn't be moved as it is covering the ongoing conflict. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes but so is the other artical, one should be merged into the other (i don't care which way round)--Boris Johnson VC 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It does seem rather obvious that "Palestinian factional violence" did not start in December 2006, as History of Fatah-Hamas tensions shows. Therefore it would make sense to include the content from History of Fatah-Hamas tensions here, as the current conflict is only the latest in a long line of incidents. The title of this article covers a much broader scope than the introduction says. Hut 8.5 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Some sources

I am preparing a similar article in the German WP. Here are some sources for the October 2006 events which are so far not covered. Collected back then so you'll have to check if they're still valid. --213.155.224.232 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

BBC: Gazans bury dead after clashes, 2. Oktober 2006

BBC: Militants threaten Hamas leaders, 3. Oktober 2006

BBC: Masked gunmen kill Hamas member, 4. Oktober 2006

Haaretz: "Qatari FM leaves Gaza unable to break Hamas-Fatah impasse", 10. Oktober 2006

Gulf Daily News" "Four killed in Gaza" 14 Oktober 2006

Start date of the fighting

I think that we should put the start date of the curent conflict of the Palestinian factions to be October 1st 2006 because, yes there was fighting even back in May, but the most intence fighting started at the begining of October and has since then been on and off just like it is now. We just put the December 15th because then is when the assasination attempt happened. But the major fighting actualy already started back in October. What do you other guys think. --Top Gun 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We should go even further back than October. It seems like these clashes/civil war began right after the elections in January 2006. But the fighting definitely did not begin on December 15. PBP 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More pictures

This should have more pictures. How is the one on the left of this site? [1]

--Shamir1 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Casualty toll

It doesn't make any sense to try to count the wounded because most of them go unreported by the media. More than 200 people were injured in the past two days and the article's toll is still at 305. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.149.119 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Civil war?

Has the conflict reached the point now that we can call it a Civil War, or is that too soon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

I would like to do that, some news sites already labelled it like that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are saying it is by definition a civil war, fine. If you are saying that there is some threshhold for that, but we have already reached it, it's way too soon for that. It's been only two days, and this level of conflict has already happened before. So I suggest that the terms we use may be relatively less important in addressing this topic. thanks. --Sm8900 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Please don't use direct links to Reuters Alernet, today.reuters or the Associated Press - those links disappear forever after 60 days and are therefore worthless. Use news.bbc.co.uk and other stabile news sites instead. --213.155.224.232 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can use AP and Reuters by including an article's headline and byline. Then, when the article expires, you can do a web search with those terms to find a still-lasting link.

if you want to know where to find permanent links now, I find I can often still access them from the ABC News website, Washington Post, sfgate, and contracostatimes. there are numerous other examples which are smaller sites. I think AP and Reuters are too good a resource to block them off completely. This method allows a middle-of the-road option. Thanks for mentioning this important point. --Sm8900 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New violence

Is there another article for the new violence over the last few days? I'm adding an update tag. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to have a look at History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That covers some of it. thanks. --Sm8900 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression that the latest round of violence involved Israel, though I didn't really delve beyond the a passing mention in today's Boston Metro. I certainly didn't think it would rise to levels for inclusion in the I-P article. But I'll poke around....-- Kendrick7^talk 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems relevant in the sense that it forms part of the history of the overall conflict. The status of Palestinian governance is directly related to the chance for peace, and for the conflict to be resolved. --Sm8900 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That seems to be talking about something else. There's new violence going on between Fatah and Hamas. See google news. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it wasn't relevant, just not what I was looking for. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of the Palestinian factional violence needs update. This page only minimal --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Overcount of casualties

I think that we have overcounted the number of killed Fatah members by 2. It has been established in one article that 24 people were killed in the first three days and we have compiled the list of all of those in the timeline section, on the 16th, the worst day, it was reported in various news articles that 21 people were killed, on the 17th only 3 were killed and on the 18th 1 person was killed. That makes a total of 49 killed. But the AP is today saying that 47 were killed since the start of the fighting not 49. I checked and found that on the 16 there were two instances that two Fatah fighters were reported killed, one report that bodies of two Fatah were lying beside the compund of the Palestinian president and another one which said that two were killed when they entered a part of the city which was under the countrol of Hamas. Now there was also a report that a presidental guard was killed that day too. So may guess is that that guard was killed in the attack on the compound and the two bodies lying beside the compund were mistaken with the report about the two killed in Hamas teritory. Yes that would make 19 killed on the 16th which is in contrst with reports that 21 were killed that day but then it would make 47 total since the start of the fighting like it is reported today. I am removing two Fatah.(Top Gun) 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I applaud your effort at accuracy. however, I think it is a little soon to try for exact numbers. Besides, issues like these are why we go to other sources in the first place. So if we're not sure, we can simply say "over 40." We don't actually have to pick our way through all the various sources. We can wait 2 or 3 days, until another oficial source actually does come out with a definitive figure. thanks. --Sm8900 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of fighting

Please, a distinction has to be made between the periods before and after December 2006. There is a difference in the intensity before and after. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind after reading BBC: Witnesses said it was the worst fighting they had experienced in Gaza during 18 months of internal strife. [2] So February 2006 seems real beginning. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Troop numbers

The troops numbers for Fatah are too high - why is every single soldier counted as if everyone of them will take part? This is how I see it:

• This is an article about a war
• In the info war box troop numbers that are deployed or take part in battle should be counted.

Look at for example the Iraq war in 2003. The troop numbers for the Coalition forces don't include every single British, American and Polish etc. soldier in their respective armies. So why has the Presidential guard and police been included in this war? Has the 4,200 strong presidential guard actually taken part in the fighting?

If we can't clarify whos or how many have been fighting than it should be stated that these are possible troop numbers.Tourskin 11:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Civil war

Is this a civil war? I don't know, but I think that the title is POV. Suggest a change to 2007 Fatah-Hamas conflict or something like that. Comments? Batmanand | Talk 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel it fits the criteria for being labeled a civil war. A conflict between HAmas and Fatah is a civil war. (just like any armed conflict between liberals and conservatives in the USA or in any other conuntry would be). thanks. --Sm8900 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(Playing devil's advocate for a moment) 1. Palestine is not a state, so how can it have a civil war? 2. Not all Palestinians are involved - particularly if one includes the greater Palestinian exile. If there was a small armed conflict in Conneticut between the Republicans and Democrats there, would that be a civil war? 3. Do you have any sources to call it a civil war? Batmanand | Talk 14:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be an independent state to have a civil war. At most, to have the term conflict could be euphemistic --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Civil war brings with it all kinds of POV connotations too; of revolution, of there having been a functioning government in Gaza that is being overthrown; indeed (rightly or wrongly) the word "war" is POV in that it implies something formal, something declared, something with two opposing "armies" etc. I'm not saying that this description does not apply to the current situation in Gaza, just that I need to be convinced as such by sources. Batmanand | Talk 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is frustrating that we have to have these discussions after an article has been renamed. For the record, I don't think civil war is the right wording here. The previous article title was better descriptive of the situation. --StuffOfInterest 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this not a civil war? The first sentence of the Civil war article: A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. There's no POV, just definitional reality over euphemistic hand-wringing. --Elliskev 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me note one thing here, we don't establish what something is or is not. All we do is compile articles from reliable sources. If a majority of the reliable sources (WP:RS) start to call this a civil war, then the article should reflect it. --StuffOfInterest 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read on in the civil war article, you will see that there is considerable definitonal debate about the issue of what is and what is not a civil war. For example, some experts are loath to call a conflict in which less than 1000 people - or 100 on each side - die a civil war. Thus a) just because the lead says so doesn't mean it is absolutly true and b) Wikipedia is not a suitable reference for itself. Batmanand | Talk 15:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

• Gaza civil war has begun: Abbas
• Gaza ‘civil war’ as Hamas and Fatah battle for control
• "About 90 people, mostly fighters but also women and children, have been killed since a spike in violence Sunday sent Gaza into civil war." - Hamas Overruns Rival Fatah's Key Posts (Guardian)

--Elliskev 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to: BBC calls it "the latest battles"; Arab News does not call it a civil war, Al Jazeera calls it "fierce factional fighting", CNN calls it "the escalating violence" etc. Batmanand | Talk 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a benefit to a debate on this. If there is a basis for both terms, fine. Clearly there is some basis for "civil war" so it is a valid term to use. --Sm8900 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason they are having the debate over at Civil war in Iraq. Because civil war has POV implications. Batmanand | Talk 16:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that it is a civil war. It is citizen versus citizen fighting in the streets (And I guess if they have fields...) and buildings of their state with the express purpose of being able to exert de facto control over the area. Especially if Abbas follows the advice of the PLO, then the excrement hits the oscillating blades. Narson 14:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

German media are using mostly Bürgerkrieg (= civil war), though still they try to avoid that it's a civil war already but that's leading to a civil war. However, I see in this moment a problem with Palestinian Civil War as in this moment the clashes are mostly restricted to Gaza. --213.155.224.232 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm struck by the similiarities of this conflict to the start of the Irish Civil War in 1922, when two previously allied Irish nationalist factions fought each other over a peace treaty with Britain that stopped short of their ultimate goals. One side formed a government which militants accused of 'selling out' and the other side, initially at least, had the backing of the most committed armed militants. The government, or 'Free State' side were substantially armed by their former enemies, Britain, an allegation also made against Fatah. The parallells are not exact of course, but from this perspective, the intra Palestinian conflict has looked like a civil war in the making for some time. What is going on in Gaza now looks very like the begining of the fighting in Dublin in 1922.

Jdorney 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The war isn't over

As far as I can tell, the conflict is ongoing. Why does this article refer to it in the past tense? Sloverlord 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

that's how historical articles describe events, even if aspects of the events are still occurring. if not for that, we'd have even bigger debates, as there would be disagreement over what was and was not still occurring. --Sm8900 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name

I've changed the article name from "Palestinian Civil War" to "Fatah-Hamas conflict". In naming articles, we should follow the principle of least surprise and name articles by the most widely used term or, failing that, by the most descriptive NPOV term. In this case, the former name was not widely used (very few news stories have described it as the "Palestinian Civil War") and it's far from clear that the conflict actually constitutes a civil war. "Fatah-Hamas conflict" is a more neutral and descriptive name which doesn't beg the question of whether the conflict is a civil war or not. -- ChrisO 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What? What are you talking about? This conflict has been referred to as a civil war by many and many outside reliable sources. This totally fits the everyday, normal person definition of a civil war. Are you sure you're not over-thinking this? --Elliskev 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The sidebar section on the right still shows "Palestinian Civil War" as it's title. I suggest renaming it to a more appropriate name. --41.209.74.138 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Move protected

I have protected the page from moves. Hammer out your reasoning and supporting sources, rather than engaging in move warring. - BanyanTree 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For Christ's sake... A MOVE war?!? What was wrong with 'Civil war'? Do a Google news search for 'gaza civil war' and you'll (not you, BanyanTree, you're doing the right thing with the protection) see that it's not a POV conspiracy. It's a real and true civil war that is described as such by lots and lots of reliable sources. In addition to the sources I've listed above:

• Boston Globe Blames Israel for Gaza Civil War While Praising Yasser Arafat
• Israel to stay on sidelines as Palestinian civil war rages in Gaza
• Hamas takes no prisoners in Palestine’s civil war
• When is a civil war not a civil war?: my favorite
• Gaza descends into civil war

There's more... --Elliskev 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents (Cdn) is that the current name is preferable to the old one. We should use a neutral term like ChrisO said above unless another one is the consensus or widely-recognized one. While the term might be accurate, that alone isn't sufficient for our use here in my opinion. Indeed, every "POV" use is at least arguably accurate. Otherwise it would be mere vandalism. I think that the American Thinker article (the "favorite") posted above gives good evidence for that. It mentions that the media is at pains not to use the term because it has particular negative connotations. That may be a fair indictment of the mainstream media but I think it is also evidence that the term is not sufficiently wide-spread for an article title. --JGGardiner 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you know there already is an entry called Palestinian civil war? (whoops, didn't realize. well, carry on.) As well as Palestinian factional violence? --Sm8900 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the current title. While it is definitely a civil war, there are many people who will choose to disagree with that term. So the more neutral term is better. thanks. --Sm8900 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but why do we call it a "Civil war in Iraq" when controversy exists there, yet not here? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's better to judge each article individually, not look for consistency throughout Wikipedia. Otherwise these debates can really go on and on, (even more than now). --Sm8900 16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I am asking for then is, judged individually, what makes us determine not to call this a civil war, when, judged individually, we opt to call conflict in Iraq a civil war? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

that's a valid question. but there is not really any specific answer. It depends on what the general consensus slowly turns out to be. However, one consideration is that basically, any time you deal with matters relating to Palestinians, you will find a large number of editors who wish to stick to their own version of the narrative, regardless of what is actually happening to the Palestinians, and many of whom don't really care about actual conditions for Palestinians anyway. So for that reason, I would rather avoid this whole issue, and the whole debate. there is plenty of time to refer to a "Palestinain civil war" a few months from now, depending on what becomes standard usage. There is no reason to adopt a term now which might seem to some to be an under-handed way to impose a different meaning on the conflict and on the related issues. --Sm8900 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I thought it was, which, again, isnt a particularly compelling reason. What you said earlier, that this is definitely a civil war, but some disagree so we cant call it one, is inherently misunderstanding what Wikipedia's NPOV policy is. By deciding not to call it what it is, because a POV disagrees, is actually giving weight to that POV and in violation of NPOV. We dont try and equally weigh different points of view, we just go with what is verifiable and what is from reliable sources. Earlier, someone said something to the effect of "it doesnt matter what it really is, it matters what reliable sources say it is," and that is how things work here. Given that the majority of reliable sources in English are calling it a civil war, I think this is the only reasonable course of action. It certainly coincides with our independent analysis, which isnt enough on its own, but when taken with the bulk of articles referring to it as a civil war, it just adds further credibility to it.

What I recommend is to rename it back to civil war, and if we manage to find an article talking about the "name controversy," that would be worthy of a section in this article. But we go with names that english speaking reliable sources use, and to abandon this policy because a certain POV may or may not disagree with it is to abandon NPOV. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, by keeping a "move protection," we can avoid any potential move war that a controversy might carry. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, as I don't think that there is so much objective evidence for the term "civil war" being used by reliable sources much more than they use other terms. the current name seems totally neutral, not at all related to any POV at all. I care more about the article content, and do not think the article title is such a major issue. thanks. --Sm8900 17:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. And frankly one could say the same about your opinion. Wouldn't using your "POV" be NPOV? Is your opinion not a POV? Is a POV just a bad opinion? --JGGardiner 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. The policy here is to go with what reliable sources say. My point was, to not go with what reliable sources say simply because some people may have a POV which doesnt jive with the sources, is to violate NPOV. What reliable sources say is what they say. I dont really understand how this became personal - if my view that it was a civil war was in dissonance with what reliable sources say, it would certainly be a violation of NPOV to not state what was verifiable simply because of my POV. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagreed with you but I didn't think it was personal. But what makes you think this is verifiably a civil war according to the sources? Does five stories make it verifiable? Ten? Twenty? There are plenty of sources that don't use the term also. I could post many but it would be a waste of space. The source that Elliskev posted above says that the media is going out of its way not to use the term. If you can verify for me that this is the consensus term, I'd be happy to support it. But I'm curious how might to do that. --JGGardiner 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize google news isnt an infallible test, however with over 10,000 results, the term seems to have pretty widespread use [3] It seems to be the most widespread designation given to this, and all of the analysis pieces I have seen (opinions, editorials) have been stating its a civil war. Unlike with Iraq, where there was significant opposition to the term stated in editorials that was ultimately deemed less significant than the majority of english speaking press outlets which referred to it as one, there isnt significant opposition, at least from what I have found. Sources agree that its meeting the criteria, and even the ones which do not explicitly call it a civil war note the same aspects.

As to the one he found about the media trying not to use the term, that seems to be building a conspiracy where there is none. Opinion pieces from across the spectrum have been labeling it a civil war. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And also, it is being referred to as a civil war by the parties involved, something not even acheived in Iraq. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really mind the use of a google news test but I think a search there shows the problem with claiming some kind of consensus term. While Palestinian civil war comes up with a lot of hits (10,561 at the moment) Palestinian conflict returns almost as many (8,208). Palestinian fighting gets about as many hits as those two combined (18,070). The exact phrase "Palestinian Civil War" (all in quotes) only returns 137 hits compared to 1,725 for "Palestinian fighting" and 1,525 for "Palestinian conflict". And of course one should note that many of the returns for civil war, including several on the first page at the moment, say that there are fears of a civil war and are thus dismissing the possibility that what is happening now constitutes one. So, while I think that it is fair for one to call this a civil war and if I were a newspaper editor I wouldn't object to the term and I might even use the term myself, I think that it is hardly consensus. But for Wikipedia I think that in the absence of a consensus term, we should use the most neutral formulation. That might change tomorrow or the day after but I don't see anything like a consensus term right now.

I don't agree with the American Thinker piece. I just meant to say that it is the only source we have which talks about the naming process. Every other source presented was just to use for counting heads. --JGGardiner 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There's two governments now that control territory and officially don't recognize eachother as legitimate... Normalphil 13:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess as long as Palestinian civil war redirects to the article, I'm fine... Lots of good arguments on both sides. That American Thinker 2-or-3 sentence article says it all, though. However, I am aware of what Wikipedia is and what it isn't... --Elliskev 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the War on Terror?

Since the United States seems to be backing Fatah, do you think that this may be yet another theater in the War on Terror?

US support does not make it part of the war on terror. Nor if everything the US does related to the War On Terror.Narson 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Template:War on Terrorism is big and ugly and would clutter up this article. Batmanand | Talk 09:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The WOT template NOW uses code so it only appears as one line until you expand it. Second its looks are not important just that it supplies a lot of info in one space is. Third and finally all this is irrelivent if we don't have sources saying the US supported Fatah with weapons and equipment, and that that support is part of the WOT. Hypnosadist 10:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here a story from the Beeb [4] that discusses US-Fatah talks at the moment. Hypnosadist 13:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I was being somewhat ironic; what the template looks like is - as you say - utterly irrelevant to its place in the article. Batmanand | Talk 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

One good reason (or two or three) the conflict can't be a part of the war on terror is that Hamas is actively opposing al Qaeda, was instrumental in getting the release of western hostages and offered to have talks with the US and Israel to reach a compromise (which was refused). Wayne 21:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Abbas

The article says that Abbas intends to rule by presidential decree. But it also says that he has appointed a new government. That seems somewhat contradictory. Is the first part outdated? --JGGardiner 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it simply reflects the fact that while the head of a state in a parliamentary system does have the right to choose whomever he wants to form a new parliamnentary coalition, it is not consider a real coalition if it does not includes a plurality of elected legislators. So if Abbas is simply choosing any of the new parties to form a new government, that is by definition a presidential decree, even if it preserves the outward forms of parliamentary government. hope that is helpful. --Sm8900 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Template:Arab-Israeli Conflict

I would suggest to remove that template, since Israel doesn't play a role in this conflict. --213.155.224.232 12:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Neither side would particularly want Isreal's help. Jon 21:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Fatah has asked repeatedly for Israel's help. And it looks like they will now get it... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We spoke about that and then decided to add the template AND A FOOTNOTE. We will remove or keep the template according to the future events. So please extend the footnote but DO NOT remove the template ;) The conflict is as much important for Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 2000 Camp David Summit for example. Twice are PARTS of the bigger conflict it's obvious. ;)

If you really don't belive me ^_^ look at History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ;) --Mrpouetpouet 22:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance?

I'm not sure that looting of the Ministry of Education should be labelled as "vengeance" for Hamas' related activities in Gaza, especially without a decent reference. Safer to call it what it seems to be -- looting. (Unless someone else has better information.)

Web war

This BBC article covers The execution of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades commander Samih al-Madhun and the you tube videos that are now being released. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6221694.stm Hypnosadist 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

The infobox says that this conflict is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. While it's definitely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and has a lot to do with it, I don't think that it is directly a part of the conflict. For other examples, see Black September in Jordan and Lebanese Civil War. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, blame the Jews. --HanzoHattori 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, I dont think there is much doubt since the critical issue for Hamas and Fatah is the same, recognition of Israel. It would make no sense to seperate this internal conflict from the larger Israeli-Arab conflict. Gortfromort 11:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as it only fits one of the two criteria required. But just because a war involves Arabs does not mean that its automatically part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic, and part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic; in addition the conflict itself is definitley part of both those larger conflicts. I agree the main issue is recognition of Israel. --Sm8900 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the topic perhaps, but not part of the conflict AFAICT. Tewfik^Talk 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That’s the problem with infoboxes – they try to boil everything down to a one line or yes/no answer. Sometimes things are more complex than that. Usually things are more complex than that. The infobox should just give the undisputed basic info and leave the context to the article in my opinion. --JGGardiner 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=23051 --Mrpouetpouet 11:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Fatah-Hamas conflict is related to the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict, but it clearly isn't part of it. Alinor (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"U.S. funding, weapons and training for the violence"

What the heck? Is this by the same people who blame the latest Palestinian riots in Lebanon on the "Welsh club"(???) on youtube? --HanzoHattori 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting article on the US funding of Dahlan/Fatah http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804 Delad (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Israeli support and coordination with Fatah to kill Hamas leadership? Or the numerous weapons funding that Fatah receive from the Israelis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallykhan (talk • contribs) 09:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fatah Strikes Back

Can we change that section title to something more neutral sounding? --JGGardiner 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

conflict ongoing

How can it be? We haven't seen fighting for a month because the two parties cannot fight each other because one is in Gaza and the other is in WB, they cannot reach each other because there's Israel in the middle.

More, no sources are mentioning ongoing conflict. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so i guess everything is fine now? My friend, the problem is that the Palestinian polity is currently divided between two entirely separate political entities, both of them sworn enemies. I would say that is still a conflict.

More relevantly, the very fact they are unable to govern together is what qualifies this as an ongoing conflict. The fact they are both in power, separately and simultaneously, is what makes this a major conflict in Palestinian society, regardless of the actual level of violence at a particular point in time. --Steve, Sm8900 14:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK but it should be pointed out that warfare has stopped. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not properly, I expect we will be seeing more fighting soon. The Honorable Kermanshahi 11:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Something could be written now about hamas's recent move, making public prayer illegal? this is definitly hamas fatah clashing in gaza, and in west bank people are doing the same but as a protest against hamas 213.6.3.25 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

White Flag By Dief

I don't know if this should be there, he might have been arrested but he wasn't arrested by Fatah but by Egypt wich is not a participant in this conflict so his arrest has not got anything to do with this conflict. The Honorable Kermanshahi 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"U.S. plot to start Palestinian civil war"???

I'm sorry, but none of the sources are cited, and the section is obviously very biased. Take this part for example: "The botched plan has rendered the dream of Middle East peace more remote than ever, but what really galls neocons such as Wurmser is the hypocrisy it exposed." That isn't up to par with Wikipedia's standards of neutrality.

And the section's main claim "The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power.", doesn't have a single citation.

I'm going to remove this section from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabravo11 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fateh-logo.jpg

The image Image:Fateh-logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Fateh-logo.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Source

I'm sorry folks, but I don't know how to edit the references properly. I believe the vanity fair will help with the reference that is being put in doubt in the 2006 elections section. The sentence, that puts that reference in doubt, right after the last reference in that section seems out of place and unlike usual wikipedia standards.

Here is another reference that can be added to the U.S. support of Dahlan and/or the Fatah 2006 campaign, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0112/p09s01-coop.html, "An inside story of how the US magnified Palestinian suffering" Christian Science Monitor written by "Norman H. Olsen served for 26 years as a member of the US Foreign Service, including four years working in the Gaza Strip and four years as counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. He was most recently associate coordinator for counterterrorism at the Department of State. His son, Matthew N. Olsen, is the director of Explore Corps, a nascent NGO that uses outdoor education and youth programming to facilitate peace-building among young adults, with several current projects in the Gaza Strip." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.32.185 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Papers

So I am surprised that the transcripts and meetings between Fatah, the Israelis, the Americans, and M16 haven't been added. It's clear that Fatah has been committed to attacking Hamas militarily and politically with the aid and tacit support of the Western powers.

http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112512109241314.html http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112511595595810.html http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011125144345427365.html

Wallykhan (talk)wallykhan —Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

Conflict's over

Well now, Hamas and Fatah seem to have finally reached an agreement and I don't think their conflict should remain under the "ongoing" status... --Jaro7788 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Which bit of the article are you referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll just go through and tweak it which hopefully will update to current status. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

background section - problems with the first paragraph

The background section strikes me as problematic:

• "By 2005, Israelis and Palestinians still had failed to implement the 2003 Road map for peace. While Israel had unilateraly withdrawn from Gaza in 2005, it had blocked Gaza from the outer world." - This ignores the (highly relevant) reason for the blockade, namely Hamas' takeover of Gaza. This is particularly suspect since the blockade occurred concurrently to the armed conflict between Hamas and Fatah and is not historical "background".
• In the mean time, Israel advanced the colonisation of the West Bank - surely the word "colonisation" here fails WP:LABEL, especially considering that the article itself uses the word "settlement"
• "Since the conclusion of the 1993/1995 Oslo Accords by Israel and the Fatah-dominated PLO, Fatah and Hamas went different ways." - This is poor writing. It doesn't specify when the conclusion was and it doesn't specify what "went different ways" means. Considering that the Oslo period ended around 2001, this seems to contradict the next paragraph: "The tensions between Hamas and Fatah began to rise in 2005 after the death of PLO leader Yasser Arafat on 11 November 2004."
• In general, the text implies that Hamas and Fatah became separate and competing factions at some point after 1993. This ignores the broader context: that these organizations have different worldviews, ideologies and methodologies. GabrielF (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• First, a background section is not the place to go into details; internal links are better. It may give information in broader context.
• Actually, the Gaza blockade succeeded the direct colonisation, with settlements populated by COLONISTS. It was there before Hamas' takeover. The blockade was strengthened after that.
• Indeed different worldviews were always there. But they went the same way of armed resistance, until the Oslo Accords.
• The Oslo period did not really end; Area C still exists.
• Rising of tensions does not contradict earlier tensions.
• "Hamas and Fatah became separate and competing factions at some point after 1993": See above. Tensions were there. They grew in 1993, and again in 2006.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

To explain the logic of the blockade and settlements part: By signing agreements, Fatah supported the continuation of the occupation. Of course not intended, but nevertheless as result. Hamas therefore could not, and cannot accept the agreements. Israel and the international community furthered, intentional, the polarization by financing only Abbas/Fatah. With inevitably the corruption, already started under Arafat.

Because it may be confusing, I adapted the article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Background section

First alinea

User:PLNR, stop your propagandistic edits and distortion of citations. You can add other views, not replace text you don't like. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would appreciate a more constructive input on your(Wickey-nl) part addressing the issues, instead of pointless accusations and edit warring.(Like I already asked you on your talk page, which you ignored) The issue in question here is this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah–Hamas_conflict&diff=591456134&oldid=591455654

In the background section, dealing with the vies of Hamas and Fatah following the conclusion of the 1993/1995 Oslo Accords. The source [5] clearly state that:

Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian position of building a state within the boundaries of the occupied territories. The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place.

I think it is clear that quote in the reference is misleading as it is citation of Hamas 2006 election platform(which is dealt in the next section, appropriately named "2006 elections..") instead of its view since 1993/1995 to 2006, which doesn't limited to fight to occupied territories but "eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place".

So my edit is exactly per source and fixes misleading wording, based on incorrect understanding of the section/refernce timeline. What are your reason for claiming it is "distortion of citations" and propagandistic(other than WP:DONTLIKEIT) --PLNR (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also I would appreciate at least a basic explanation for your(Wickey-nl) revert here [6]. So what are your objections? again other than WP:DONLIKEIT and pointless accusations.

Because my edit pretty much followed the source. The date fix is per "the British plan, drawn up in .. in 2004"(not 2003, which refers to something else). The rest is based on: "Degrading the capabilities of the rejectionists" -- noting that not only Hamas was targeted but "other armed groups" , including "PIJ". The "counter-insurgence" is per source(and SE from second paragraph), expanded with"It lists suicide bombers and rockets as issues that need urgent attention" - to avoid confusion as to the nature of insurgence discussed(not against Fatah). Overall the edit intended to clear the nature of the Fatah plan, which was vague, borderline misleading and tad conspiratorial sounding. All of it was per source, anything more and I'd be plagiarizing the article. --PLNR (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I will first adress the first issue (your edit summary: fixed distorted citation referring to Hamas 2006 platform not its view since 1995(and before)), which is the most serious one.

The source's title says:
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto.
The article reads:
Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto ... But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place. ..., and The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of the Jewish state ..., and But the manifesto continues to emphasise the armed struggle. "Our nation is at a stage of national liberation, and it has the right to act to regain its rights and end the occupation by using all means, including armed resistance,", and the manifesto reflected the group's position of accepting an interim state based on 1967 borders but leaving a final decision on whether to recognise Israel to future generations. ..., and "Hamas is talking about the end of the occupation as the basis for a state, but at the same time Hamas is still not ready to recognise the right of Israel to exist," he said. "We cannot give up the right of the armed struggle because our territory is occupied in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is the territory we are fighting to liberate."

You deleted the relevant citation from the source and added: Hamas continued its armed for Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context, please read the article again. Because except the section I already noted in my comment above, most of the article is dealing with Hamas electoral platform after 2006. Your quoteblock above is no exception. "Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election... Gazi Hamad, a Hamas candidate in the Gaza Strip, yesterday said the manifesto reflected... [your quote follows]"Hamas is talking about the end of the occupation.." -- Since we are talking about the background section, which deals with time period before that, your quote is irrelevant here. So yes the text in the background section was changed to reflect Hamas position before the election not since, and the irreverent citation in the reference was dropped in favor of standard cite news template. --PLNR (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Background section is an attempt to explain the cause of the Fatah–Hamas conflict. In my view, it is correct to say that the basic difference between the two is armed resistance. No need to work that out in this section, which only would blur the picture.

Yet, the elections were before the begin of the conflict. While bringing it into this context, the quote is only used to show that Hamas is committed to armed resistance, in accordance with the text. No need to work that out in this section. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, so you agree that my edit fixed incorrect reference which mixed the timelines. You just don't like how it sounds. Personally, I think that noting that Fatah was working with Israel to find political solution, while Hamas was working to destroy it, blurs nothing, on the contrary it contrast better the contradicting approaches taken by each side. Which was the source of great amount of international pressure on Fatah, among other things leading to the events covered in the "Involvement of Britain, United States, Israel and Arab states" section.

Also speaking of wording in your edit here. Was it necessary to remove "political struggle" and "state-building efforts"? I intentionally put it there when I replaced the POV term "collaborating", to show that while they renounced armed struggle, they continued with political struggle, with the goal of state building. --PLNR (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

By saying that I agree, you do the same as with the article: turn upside down the words. "Hamas continued its armed for Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place" is not an explanation of the conflict, but a POV-statement. And "collaborating" is a normal English word. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lets go with what you agree with and what suggestion you have to offer? Because I am pretty sure that you disagree with final wording and not with what I said we agreed on in the previous post, but my opinion that followed.

I am not sure why you choose to argue about collaborating here, but while collaborating is a normal English word, like regime its meaning depends on the context, and here it has a negative connotation and is often thrown by one side at the other. More relevantly, more importantly "political struggle" is relevant, because you want to show what is their goal, not what no longer is. --PLNR (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

collaborating is already a strong understatement. If we would say what Hamas realy thinks about Fatah's cooperation with Israel, at least until July 2013, it would read quite different and pretty much stronger. "political struggle" is not only ambiguous, but also not an element of the conflict. Nor are "state-building efforts".

While the Background section should be clear and unambiguous, it is not for extensive explanations, many details, and subtilities. I think the original wording of the first part was compact, clear and unambiguous. I hope you can agree that the principal split came after Oslo. --Wickey-nl (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me be blunt, are you jerking me around? per your comment bellow, here with argument like "normal English word", because its obvious that you understand the concepts of NPOV and neutral wording, and your last comment show that you understand how that word place in Hamas/Fatah discourse.

Same for "political struggle", it is no more ambiguous then "armed struggle". Its very commonly used phrase for conflict worldwide, to distinguish armed from diplomatic method to achieve your goals. Neglecting to mention it implies surrender as oppose to changing tactics and Saying that Fatah changed its tactic from armed struggle to political struggle is crystal clear.(You don't want to mention state-building, no need, but it is one of the goals stipulated in the Oslo agreement).

To sum it up, the first principle differences between the two is political vs Armed struggle. While the second is working with Israel and trying to destroy it, which is very relevant because unlike the first difference it what puts them at odds, which is precisely the topic of the article. --PLNR (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Replacing the word collaborating is and was not an issue for me. What disturbed was replacing it with some interpretations, especially combined with the following edits.

Political struggle is not so unambiguous here. How to reconcile with far-reaching collaboration or cooperation with Israel? What is political struggle? Diplomacy? It implies that Hamas rejected political struggle. Did Hamas reject it, or other parties? I would prefer something like "While Fatah renounced armed resistance, and cooperated with Israel, Hamas continued its armed fight against the occupation" (Oslo Accords already mentioned).

All Palestinians realised, far before Oslo, that destruction of Israel is an unrealistic goal. Use of your citation, while the source says it has been dropped is mood making and incitement, unless you provide other sources that prove otherwise. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Again there are two principle differences between the two at that time. First, is political vs Armed struggle/resistance/whatever. Second working with Israel and trying to destroy it, which is very important because unlike the first difference it what puts them at odds, and led to the friction that is explained in the British invovement section.. -- Do you have any alternative wording suggestions? Because vague assertions about what anyone realized is of no consequence. -

Furthermore since you obviously very concerned with accuracy and clarity, I took the liberty to quote what the current and another source says on this:

• "Under the Oslo peace accords, after recognizing Israel’s right to exist in 1993, Fatah led efforts toward a two-state solution with Israel. These meetings established the Palestinian Authority (PA), headed by Arafat’s Fatah party."
• "The charter also explains that Hamas uncompromisingly seeks the destruction of Israel, pursuing a Palestinian state that encompasses the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, all of Jerusalem, and Israel: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." link

• "PA President Mahmoud Abbas advocates restarting the peace process and is a strong critic of armed "resistance" and attacks on Israeli civilians. His goal is to establish a Palestinian state in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as capital."
• "Hamas's charter uncompromisingly seeks Israel's destruction. However, Hamas's Ismail Haniya, the prime minister of the unity government until it was dissolved in June 2007, has spoken of a long-term truce with Israel if Israel withdraws from territory occupied in 1967." link

I am looking forward to hear what suggestions you have. --PLNR (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem obsessed by the phrase "trying to destroy Israel", popular and carefully maintained and exploited in Israel to justify the occupation. There is, however, no disagreement about the illegality of that state. The issue of "trying to destroy Israel" or recognize it is not a separate one, but included in the agreements with Israel. Hamas' rejection of the signed agreements is obvious. To claim that Hamas seeks Israel's destruction cannot be based on the Charter, which is propagandistic. Moreover, AFAIK the Charter does not explicitely mention it as a goal of Hamas.

I see nothing vague. Expectations and motives for doing what they do. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You time and again removed my citation about armed fight by Hamas, with a very strange reason, as it directly supports the claim. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Involvement of Britain

The second point regards a revert of your edit: [7]
The source's title says:
Palestine papers reveal MI6 drew up plan for crackdown on Hamas
The article reads:
British intelligence helped draw up a secret plan for a wide-ranging crackdown on the Islamist movement Hamas and The documents also highlight the intimate level of military and security cooperation between Palestinian and Israeli forces. and included detailed proposals for a security taskforce based on the UK's "trusted" Palestinian Authority contacts, outside the control of "traditional security chiefs", with "direct lines" to Israel intelligence. and Alistair Crooke ... said the British documents reflected a 2003 decision by Tony Blair to tie UK and EU security policy in the West Bank and Gaza to a US-led "counter-insurgency surge" against Hamas – which backfired when the Islamists won the Palestinian elections in 2006.

You changed ... in 2003 prepared a plan for a wide-ranging crackdown on Hamas in favor of the Palestinian Authority, which until then was dominated by Fatah. into: in 2004, British intelligence MI6, helped draw up a security apparatus for the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority to degrade the capabilities of the "rejectionists" faction noting Hamas and PIJ, listing replacement of affiliated Imams, closer of radio stations and counter-insurgency steps involving suicide bombers and rockets fire. A clear disruption of the original. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you thought to share those thoughts before your accusations and unexplained reverts, but as it stands we already past that. In my previous comment above, I explained my changes and presented the relevant segments from the article(Which you didn't thought to address here) so with that knowledge in mind do you still claim the edit is "propagandistic" or we can processed with it and if there are some minor wording adjustment you'd be able to make them. --PLNR (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that you are keen on including negative words about Hamas. Doing so on inappropriate places, erasing and distorting existing text appears to be propagandistic, indeed. It would have been nice if you had explained such drastic changes before, to make a revert unnecessary. Terroristic attacks may be mentioned, but in context on the right place. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that you are keen on non constructive comments and accusations. Again, I am asking you to address the changes in the edit, which I already explained above: 1. fixed date 2. mention of PIJ as part of other armed groups the measures were conceived for(not just Hamas) 3. mention of radio Stations and Imams i.e. non violent measure to deal with incitement charges leveled at the PA 4. Expanding on the vague counter-insurgence plan to avoid confusion, right now it sound like a political crackdown as opposed to Fatah government upholding its security obligations to stop rocket fire and suicide bombers. All of which was directly noted in the source. If your objections are no longer valid then i'll put it back and we can continue from there normally --PLNR (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the deletion of the key sentence "Documents published in Al Jazeera's Palestine Papers reveal that the British intelligence MI6 in 2003 prepared a plan for a wide-ranging crackdown on Hamas in favor of the Palestinian Authority, which until then was dominated by Fatah.", which perfectly reflects the essence of the article.

Collecting pieces of sources and compose them to one is called WP:SYNTH:

"helped draw up a security apparatus for the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority to degrade the capabilities of the "rejectionists" faction noting Hamas and PIJ, listing replacement of affiliated Imams, closer of radio stations and counter-insurgency steps involving suicide bombers and rockets fire."

How things sound is how you read it. And do not say that my objections are no longer valid. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You already said that in previous post. what I asked is if you have any objections to the 1-4 issues(not the final wording) I outlined in previous post(e.g. do you agree the date is wrong. simple right?). so we can address them or if necessary continue and find a more suitable wording.--PLNR (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean with 1-4 issues, but both years are correct. In 2003, the plan was decided, in 2004, the plan was worked out. I have no problems with saying only that "MI6 in 2004 drew up a plan", to follow the source. --Wickey-nl (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

probably the 4 issues outlined in previous post, that I directed you to(Issues which I mentioned 3 times, numbered in recent comment so you could address them easily and now highlighted so you don't get confused).

As for 1. I can agree. with "MI6 in 2004 helped draw up a plan" which became a security blueprint for the Palestinian Authority.

As for point 2. Do you agree that the security measures mentions in the article(not the eye catching title) didn't target only Hamas? Seeing as Hamas is only directly mentioned as part of other armed groups, inconjunction with PIJ, under the title "rejectionists".

feel free to comment on 3 and 4 to.--PLNR (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Re point 4, your proposals are inconsistent with the cited source which states: "British intelligence helped draw up a secret plan for a wide-ranging crackdown on the Islamist movement Hamas which became a security blueprint for the Palestinian Authority, leaked documents reveal. The plan asked for the internment of leaders and activists, the closure of radio stations and the replacement of imams in mosques....The bulk of the British plan has since been carried out by the West Bank-based PA security apparatus which is increasingly criticised for authoritarian rule and human rights abuses, including detention without trial and torture."

Your proposed text is unfortunate because you deleted sourced information and cherry picked two phrases from the source that are actually quotes from the leaked document: "Degrading the capabilities of the rejectionists" and "counter-insurgency". But you do not attribute them properly, giving the impression this is how the source describes the plan. On the contrary the source describes the plan as a "wide-ranging crackdown". Dlv999 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Re User:Dlv999, point 4: Your assertion that I deleted sourced information refers to "wide-ranging crackdown", predicated on the notion that the eye candy used for the article title, should be used as oppose to the actual details and specific quotes from that plan:

The British documents, which have been independently authenticated .. included detailed proposals.

It lists suicide bombers and rockets as issues that need urgent attention.

Under the heading "Degrading the capabilities of the rejectionists" ... Hamas and other armed groups ... PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]

While my reason was simple the clarify vague statements with details from the plan/security blueprint/security apparatus/Security Plan/etc.(per points 1,2,3,4 which I explained above). The only person that cheery picking here is you, hence the irrelevant parts of your quote to this discussion/sentence where we discuss the plan, not its implementation. Anyway, what about points 2 and 3 --PLNR (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

point 4: First sentence is ambiguous now. While true that paper heading sometimes are promotional, this one is correct. The plan does not include a wide-ranging crackdown on Hamas, but the plan itself was a crackdown: British intelligence helped draw up a secret plan for a wide-ranging crackdown. Also in Palestine papers: MI6 plan proposed internment – and hotline to Israelis: "The Palestinian Authority's security strategy to crush Hamas and other armed groups on the West Bank" and "The leaked intelligence plan can be seen in retrospect as a blueprint for PA security control of the West Bank" and

"the documents reflected a 2003 decision by Tony Blair to tie UK and EU security policy in the West Bank and Gaza to a US-led "counter-insurgency surge" against Hamas".

Clear enough. We should refrain from clarifying in such complex cases, not interpret and leave it to the sources. As usage in WP.

As for point 2: This is about the Fatah–Hamas conflict. Mentioning other groups adds nothing in this context. As for point 3: You like to include rocket fire and suicide bombers to paint a dark picture, right? The details are irrelevant for the article. One can find it in the provided link. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this obviiously leading nowhere i.e. no constructive suggestions, only objections and hanging to specificwording used in one source, I have add a new souce to clarify things, and alleviate any claims about cheery picking etc[

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah–Hamas_conflict&diff=592360087&oldid=592357533 here]. If you further objections please explain preferably with alternative wording suggestion, thank you.--PLNR (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fatah, Hamas and Palestinian unity

In the context of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, the Irish senator David Norris said that "[...] Israel is afraid of Palestinian unity. That is what all of this is about. It has nothing to do with the appalling murder of those three Israeli kids. The Israeli police knew that Hamas had nothing to do with it before this war started. Israel created Hamas in order to split Fatah, so it is responsible for Hamas. I had this confirmed at the highest level in the foreign ministry in Jerusalem some years ago. [...]"

Source: speech at the Senate of Ireland on Thursday 31 July 2014. Text: [8], video: [9].

Dt Mos Ios (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

Recent Edit Conflicts

Wiki demands that its content reflects a NPOV. This article, as per mid-December 2014 had an introduction to the “Background” section that was seriously skewed, consisting in essence of praise for Fatah and criticism of Hamas, with explanations for Fatah choices but none for those by Hamas. It also failed to provide any underlying context for these differences. My (Ericthe enquirer) edit, time-stamped ‘16:36, 20 December 2014‎’, was intended both to provide the Hamas motivations and at the same time provide the factors leading to these differences.

This edit was reverted in its entirety by Tuylrnicracker666 (talk · contribs) without any recourse to Talk; a violation of WP:ARBPIA protocol. In the one-liner Edit Summary justification, it provided that Arafat, leader of Fatah, had earlier planned the Second Intifada. This is irrelevant, given that Arafat was the leader of Fatah at the time, not Hamas. Unsubstantiated accusations of ‘cherry-picking’ and ‘POV’ were also made. This user then further took it open himself to adjudicate what text should be retained in the article because there is an article on the peace talks elsewhere, thereby violating WP:PRESERVE editing standard. No attempt was made to provide balancing text to remedy the alleged non-NPOV. Kenrick7 reverted the deletion, citing that latter standard.

Once again without resorting to Talk page discussion, Tuylrnicracker666 (talk · contribs) reverted with the one-liner Edit Summary “WP:PRESERVE doesn't mean to not revert cherry-picking POV edits”, once again unsubstantiated. I reverted in turn, requesting that Tuylrnicracker666 (talk · contribs) take his/her dispute to the Talk page.

reverted next, also without recourse to Talk, with the one-liner “Opinions (from an Op_Ed) can't be presented in Wikipedia's voice”. Even excluding the issue of reverting without proper discussion, given that there were three citations, this 'opinions' claim provides no analytical value at all. Once again I reverted, inviting

to take the dispute to the Talk pages.

again reverted, providing only the one-liner “funny, I didn't see any attempt to support this by you on the talk page. Read WP:ONUS and WP:BRD)”. Even this off-topic one-liner Edit Summary (??) was logically flawed. Firstly, WP:ONUS demands definition of disputed content. There has so far been no discussion of this on the Talk pages. In line with WP:BRD, Gouncbeatduke (talk · contribs) reverted. Instead of complying with the BRD protocol and entering into Talk discussion,

simply reverted again, this time again with another one-liner Edit Summary (ironically) citing WP:HOUNDing.

In order to provide for structure and reasoned discussion, I invite all interested parties to revert to the original 20 December edit, and to enter into discourse in Talk as to why text aimed at achieving a balance of motivations between Fatah and Hamas should be summarily deleted in its entirety; why the offered citations are potentially inappropriate; why text is POV; and what can be done to improve any (eventual) deficiencies; or why WP:PRESERVE should be violated and the entire edit deleted.

As a result, I am making a WP:BRD revert so as to promote recourse to Talk. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The word 'Welcome' in the middle of the third paragraph above, should read 'user:All Rows4' Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation Failure

In December 2014 I flagged a portion of text in the introduction to "Background" which was not supported by the text "Fatah renounced armed struggle against Israel pursuant to the Oslo Accords". In fact the citation noted that Fatah was created precisely to implement an armed struggle, and, in 2002, "that armed resistance within the Palestinian Territories was legitimate." For lack of a balancing WP:RS in 4 months, I have deleted it. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC) In retrospect, since the questioned citation was WP:RS I have reverted my original deletion (allowed under the WP:1RR rule), but instead, changed the text to reflect the actual source content. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Background Section

Erictheenquirer, you are repeatedly inserting an opinion, from an OpEd, and stating it in Wikipedia's voice, as if it was fact. That's just not the way we do things here. IF that opinion is to be included in the article at all (and we need to discuss that , and get consensus for it, first), it needs to be attributed. Accordingly, I am removing it. You should read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, and then please continue the discussion here to get consensus for the inclusion of this opinion in the article, rather than continuing to edit-war it back in. All Rows4 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)