Upcoming conference[edit]

The conference is also expected to discuss the status of peace talks with Israel. According to a draft "political plan" leaked to some Arab newspapers over the weekend, the Fatah conference will reiterate Fatah's commitment to the "armed struggle" against Israel as one of the options to achieve an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Fatah, according to the reports, is also expected to reemphasize its opposition to Israel's demand that it be recognized as a Jewish state.

As the Fatah movement prepares for its upcoming leadership convention, a senior group member says the event will be used to display Fatah's commitment to the armed struggle against Israel. 'We will maintain the resistance option in all its forms and we will not recognize Israel," he said. "Not only don't we demand that anyone recognize Israel; we don't recognize Israel ourselves. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Negotiations with Israel were not part of Fatah's culture,", said Jamal Nazzal, a Fatah spokesman in the West Bank...He declared that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist and denied that his faction had asked Hamas or any other Palestinian party to do so...Almost all said they opposed recognizing Israel as a Jewish state or relinquishing the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to their original homes inside Israel. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will Fatah Give Up the Armed Struggle at Its Sixth General Congress?. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'No talks unless Israel frees prisoners', "Fatah delegates meeting here Thursday resolved not to renew peace negotiations with Israel until all Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails, all settlement-building is frozen and the Gaza blockade is lifted". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fatah: Return J'lem before talks go on --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I would also like to add that Fatah has joined as a member of the Arab Social Democratic Forum and I think this should be recorded under a new "regional affiliation" heading http://arabsocialdemocrats.org/about/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.237 (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Desicions and statements made at 6th Fatah Movement Assembly[edit]

Wikifan, your recent edit read "During the assembly, a series of proclamations and commitments were made by Fatah leadership officials. Almost all officials during the conference "opposed recognizing Israel as a Jewish state." Party spokesman Jamal Nazzal declared that "Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist." However, no such statement were made during the assembly. Moreover, the sources you cited date back before 4 August 2009 when the assembly actually started. No articles published after 6 August does mention or reference to the claims made by you. Please, edit articles in 'good faith' --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted you because I did not see a rationale in talk even though an exclaimer was provided in the edit-summary.

For the most part, you are correct. However, you could have just switched out the lead with "Prior to the assembly." I didn't read the articles all the way through which was a mistake on my part. I just noticed a lot of crucial information was missing. I don't think information about the assembly should be removed wholesale just because it was published before/after the actual conference took place.

So can we re-instate the paragraph with a tweaked intro? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think that wiki as encyclopeadae needs to reference to the allegations made in Israeli media prior to commencement of the Assembly, moreover, when those allegations now are not even valid. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What allegations? The articles in question were written by Khaled Abu Toameh, an expert on Fatah and Palestinian corruption. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure that encyclopeadae, for this particular subsection, needs to cite the assumptions which were not, after all, realised? --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These were not assumptions but cited and well-attributed quotations. Abbas and the spokesmans statements of not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state (in addition to not recognizing Israel as a state period) were certainly realized so I don't know where you are going with this. Can you be more explicit? I don't see unfulfilled accusations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did the Assembly issued a statement that Fatah does not recognise the right of Israel for statehood? Shall we ask for 3d person mediation?--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did it? 2 crucial Fatah officials are quoted explicitly in reference to the assembly. The references might have occurred before or after the assembly and may not have been stated during the actual conferences, but the statements didn't disappear as you imply. The fact that the leader of Fatah made these revealing comments is enough for inclusion. We can simply say, "prior to the assembly" or "in anticipation.." etc. We are obligated to merge the info in the article and I cannot find any policy-endorsed reasoning for denial. I don't think we need a 3rd opinion unless a serious rationale for exclusion is made. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not agree that assumptions and allegations of media should at all be in this article, this is encyclopedea, not a 'yellow press' for an eye-catching rhetorics. I am seeking the help of the 3d person for this issue, otherwise our discussion will lead us nowhere.

Also on the other issue, you referenced to Jpost article, 'No talks unless Israel frees prisoners', where the sentence reads:

"Fatah delegates meeting here Thursday resolved not to renew peace negotiations with Israel until all Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails, all settlement-building is frozen and the Gaza blockade is lifted."

You have re-wrote it into:

Fatah delegates also reiterates its refusal to resume peace talks until preconditions were met. Among the 14 preconditions, included the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, freezing all settlement construction, and lifting the Gaza blockade.

I see the problem with '...reiterates its refusal to resume talks...' - it bears a strong negative connotation in fact, I propose to use a more neutral wording to comply with Wiki's impartial tone principle. I suggest using the Jpost wording, which is '...resolved not to renew...'. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's more accurate. Fatah has been saying this since the beginning of the year. Also, it's important we include the "14" number until we can find out each precondition. I only could find the most important 4. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I'm not sure if it was right of you to canvass a 3rd party editor without going to 3O first. Just a heads up for next time. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Wikifan, but you know that Wiki it is not about your's or my "thinking" what is accurate, but rather sticking to the facts, sources and using neutral words. The edits should be edited in 'good faith'. Pls consider the middle point for our different stances on the issue.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am I not editing in good faith? I haven't accused you of anything. I'm not really sure what the middle point is. All I did was synthesize what the RS was saying without copying/pasting wholesale. It's not a secret that Fatah has more than once stated its refusal to resume peace talks. I'd be happy to include more references demonstrating Fatah's hostile tone but I figured the original RS was sufficient. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a direct quote from Wiki's impartial tone principle.

Impartial tone

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not disputing this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I am changing it.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hold up. Copy/pasting policy is perfectly acceptable but it has little to do with what the references are saying. There is a fine line between a false neutrality and Wikipedia:verifiability. We can't actively decide to make events seem less-heated to prevent the wrong impression. We simply do what the reliable sources and references say. There is nothing impartial, partisan, or POV of the edit you just reverted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not copy/pasted, what was edited is only 'resolved not to...', the whole sentence remains as per your edit.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Gaza[edit]

Why is the Hamas-Fatah conflict missing?72.199.100.223 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference to Prophet Muhammad has a false statement[edit]

The portion of the article that says "Muhammad successfully conquered Mecca by first signing a peace agreement, and then later seeking to abrogate it when he had forces sufficient to secure certain victory over the Meccans," is misleading because (1) Muhammad did not seek to abrogate it, and (2) the agreement was breached by the Meccan side and that negated the agreement. I am changing it accordingly. The fact that there was a breach is not even denied by the anti-Islamic websites such as answering-islam.org.Lugalbanda (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)LugalbandaReply[reply]

Where was Fatah established?[edit]

As I have just added the Hamas article to Category:1987 establishments in the Palestinian territories I'd like some input on what would be the appropriate establishments by country category for the current article? __meco (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology section seems to have OR[edit]

We have this text:

The word Fatah is used in religious discourse to signify the Islamic expansion in the first centuries of Islamic history—as in Fath al-Sham, the "opening of the Levant" -- and so has positive connotations for Muslims. The term "Fatah" also has religious significance in that it is the name of the 48th sura, or chapter, of the Qu'ran, which according to major Muslim commentators details the story of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. During the peaceful two years after the Hudaybiyyah treaty, many converted to Islam increasing the strength of the Muslim side. It was the breach of this treaty by Muhammad[8][9] that triggered the conquest of Mecca. This Islamic precedent was cited by Yasser Arafat as justification for his signing the Oslo Accords with Israel.[10][11]

As far as I can see, none of the given references actually connect historical use/meaning of the word to the name of the organization. Without such a connection made by the source, this material is inadmissible under the rules of WP:SYNTH. Zerotalk 07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These concerns expressed 10 months ago have not been addressed. The material will be deleted if they are not addressed very soon. Zerotalk 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goals in lead[edit]

This edit added a large amount of original research to the lead. To begin with, we need a secondary source giving us the goals of the organization. Additionally, the material on the charter affirming the constitution and requiring adherence to the constitution requires a secondary source, as does the material on Zionist organizations being opposed. I am reverting the edit and request that secondary sources be used for such material to avoid the OR issues presently in the article. nableezy - 14:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been restored with an additional source for the view that the 2009 charter is irrelevant. The problems from the original edition remain, as the article is still citing the primary source to define the goals, but are also amplified as we now also include an unreliable source, the ZOA. nableezy - 00:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Zero and Nableezy (and anyone else editing the Fatah page). Sorry for not writing earlier, but I didn't actually know where or how to respond. I was expecting a message board kind of thing. I finally figured out that I just have to edit like any Wikipeida article. A little weird IMHO, but I admit I should have figured it out earlier.

Anyway, regarding "original research", I think it would be instructive to review Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

As you can see from this section, primary sources are at times appropriate, and their use is simply (or complexly!) a matter of "common sense and good editorial judgment". I believe that quoting the Fatah Constitution is an appropriate use of a primary source, because the most basic thing a person wants to know about an organization is what it's purpose is, and the goals that define that purpose appear in that organization's founding document. For example, if you go to the article on the NAACP, a part of the mission statement is quoted from the NAACP's website (BTW, discovered that the link is broken. Might fix it when I have the time.). Therefore, I think quoting the Fatah Constitution is not a case of "original research". Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that there are many scholarly articles that note Fatah's goals as quoted, and as such, the goals as listed are "verifiable" as per Wikipedia's guidelines.

I also want to point out that the section on goals had been a part of the article for a year or more when Drsmoo removed the goals 2 months ago on the basis of the 2009 internal charter. That deletion was itself a clear example of original research as it was based entirely on his/her interpretation of the charter. Therefore, I could have just put the goals back and left it at that, but I decided to try to address the concern that the original constitution had been voted out. I can understand not being happy with the ZOA press release, but I couldn't find anything better, and certainly nothing contradictory. Interestingly enough, sources like the Fateh website (only in Arabic now), and the English Palestinian news agencies Ma'an and Wafa, apparently have no references at all to the internal charter. This lack of interest strongly suggests that the internal charter is just that - an internal document that is not of special significance. Had the constitution been cancelled and replaced, it is reasonable to assume that such an event would have warranted at least one, if not a plethora of articles on all three key Fatah/Palestinian websites.

I hope that you can see that I am editing in good faith, and that objective citations from an organization's founding document are permissible according to Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBK613 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a controversial issue, making it all the more important to present a balanced view from third parties. To show how bad the lead is at the moment from a neutrality viewpoint, consider this from an American Jewish magazine:
An Israeli official told the Forward that the Fatah constitution “is not an issue” as far as Jerusalem is concerned. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Israel regards Fatah as part of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which has already changed its charter and recognized Israel. “Fatah is committed to all agreements signed with the PLO,” the Israeli official said. “Whatever took place before signing the Oslo agreements is irrelevant.” [1]
When our article makes claims about Fateh even more extreme than the Israeli position, we know for sure that something is wrong. In general it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV to write an article on an organization primarily from the viewpoint of its enemies. Zerotalk 01:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero, I think it is a valid point that the stated goals of a political organization may not always represent the goals of the current leadership. I'm therefore thinking about how to reword the description of Fatah's goals to make it as objective as possible. Still, I do believe that an encyclopedia entry on an organization should state that organization's goals, without giving interpretations about how well those goals are being implemented or why they may be being ignored for practical reasons. Ditto for opinions about theoretical cancellations of the organization's constitution/charter. I think quotes like the one you cited with an anonymous Israeli official are more appropriate for an article on the constitution itself, in a subsection about opinions regarding the currency of the stated goals/mission of Fatah. Objectively, Fatah's stated goals are not "extreme"; they just are. If Fatah feels that those goals are extreme, they can always officially and incontrovertibly rewrite that entire section.

BTW, it is not hard to find quotes by prominent Fatah officials supporting the original goals of the movement, and that Fatah is distinct from the PA. Here are two examples from one webpage (http://ironicsurrealism.com/2011/05/22/mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-authority-fatah-no-peace-no-israel/):

1. Source: Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 1, 2010 “[PA Minister of Tourism, Khuloud] Daibes, said: ‘This day [Festival for Tourism and Cultural Heritage] is meant to bring joy to people’s hearts and to preserve the Palestinian heritage. Moreover, it is part of the popular resistance whose goal is to bring about an end to Israel.’” (4th blue paragraph)

2. Muhammad Dahlan said, “I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today… It’s required of the government but not of Hamas; it’s required of the government but not of the Fatah, so that this government will be able to offer the necessary assistance, to carry out the necessary reconstruction, to offer assistance to the sick, to bring relief to needy families… This can be dealt with [only] by a government that has relations with the international community, one that is acceptable to the international community, in order that we can work together and benefit from the international community.” –[PA (Fatah) TV, March 17, 2009] (Video and quote is at bottom of webpage.)

So while the anonymous Israeli official may feel that the original goals are irrelevant, at least two known Palestinian officials disagree. This is just another example of why it is preferable to quote an official document rather than the opinions of various pundits. Still, I do agree that caution must be used when dealing with political entities, and I hope to find an academic source for at least the general problem of political organizations' goals, if not the specific case of Fatah.

RBK613 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, edited the section on goals to include a footnote clarifying the problem of assuming the stated goals of organizations are always operative. Also found online book dealing specifically with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and ideology, though the specific page of the book linked to talks more about Hamas. Still, I think the point is clear, and hopefully this edit adequately addresses the need for objectivity in mentioning Fatah's official goals.

Fatah's original goal and ideology is missing from the article. Thewildshoe (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RBK613 (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goal?[edit]

"Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." Wont this mean the destruction of Israel, as what they call zionism is mostly Israel? I though Fatah reconiced Israel? I though they wanted peace? --84.211.0.120 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Antisemitism should be in the ideology, shouldn't it? I mean, they're not just opposed to zionists, theyre opposed to Jews, even the moderate ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.147.3.27 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not realistic. Fatah has for a long time recognized the right of any Israeli who renounced ZIonism to live in a Palestinian state. It goes back to progress made intellectually by the movement made in the first years of the movement, culminating in works like "The Palestinian Revolution and the Jews" by the PLO research centre in Beirut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.250.223 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why isn't this intellectual progress mentioned in any way in the article? Fatah's stance on Jews before and after the intellectual progress is missing from the article. Thewildshoe (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gap[edit]

Is it just me, or is there a gap in the historical timeline between 1982 and 2000? ~ MD Otley (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fatah, Hamas and Palestinian unity[edit]

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: [2], video: [3].

Dt Mos Ios (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Boldly added this to the article. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 18:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Two-state solution" as ideology?[edit]

I remember some time ago removing the "two-state solution" descriptor in the "ideology" section of this article's infobox. Why has this been reinstated? Liborbital (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

its not ideology its a political fair policy 49.180.209.7 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fatah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fatah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fatah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fatah's ideology is "Secularism"????!!!![edit]

The Basic Law approved in 2002 by the Palestinian Legislative Council and signed by then-President Yasser Arafat STATED that Islam is the official religion of Palestine, and It also declared: "Shari'a shall be the main source of legislation". I'm deleting "Secularism" as part of Fatah's ideology, and writing "Moderate religious influence". Cid Campeador3 (Cid Campeador3|talk) 00:02, 23 November 2014‎ (UTC).Reply[reply]

I added "moderate Islamist influences" in infobox, according to this article in the Middle East Quarterly, but this has been reverted. What do other editors think of this? – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 18:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fatah isn't secular. I think the article should at least have a footnote next to secularism that says it's disputed whether it's secular or not. Kart2401real (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any sources for that claim? And are you aware, that - just as in other political contexts, such as the IRA - more radical or extremist groups split off from time to time. The Fatah al-islam e.g. are a small group of religious extremists and don't have much in common with the original "Fatah" founded led by deceased Yasser Arafat. While "Fatah al-Islam" is connected to Al-Quaida, "Fatah" itself is democratic and secular for sure, officially recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and promoting a "two-state" solution for palestine. 2003:C3:F73F:5600:D4B2:2D0F:246F:79F4 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ressurecting this discussion. The infobox currently lists "secularism" under ideology, but this is footnoted with a quote from Fatah's Basic Law as follows: "Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained; The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation." This is a flat-out contradiction. While Fatah is clearly less explicitly Islamist than Hamas, and it is important that the article points this out so readers can understand Fatah in the context of the Palestinian political landscape, it is stretching the word "secularism" to breaking point to describe a party as secular if it privileges a particular official religion, no matter how much freedom it may offer to the practice of other religions. Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fatah's Ideology[edit]

Fatah parctiaclly speaking is not Secular, Islamist, or anthing. It is a broad part aka Big tent for Palestinian nationalists, Fatah members rang from Islamists, Secularists, and many other things. The only thin I would say that they have in common is that they are Palestinian Nationalists that support the Two-state solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.64.230 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palestine - NOT secular.[edit]

In regards to the discussion above, is anything being done to remove the "secular" ideology reference in this article? It has been mentioned by two editors above, but nothing has been done.

To call an islamic state secular is absolutely ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.127.8 (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fatah is not a state, nor is the only political party in Palestine. MarioGom (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2023[edit]

This is a minor grammatical change for the sake of clarity.

In the "History" section, scroll down to:

"2009 6th General Assembly"

Check third paragraph:

"Delegates resolved not to resume Israeli-Palestinian peace talks until 14 preconditions were met. Among these preconditions were the release of all Israel-held Palestinian prisoners, a freeze on freezing all Israeli settlement construction, and the end of the Gaza blockade.[42]"

(Well, obviously, "a freeze on freezing ... construction" means just the opposite of what was intended.)

You might DELETE the redundant gerund, "freezing" (probably left in by accident following an earlier edit). The sentence would then read: "Among these preconditions were the release of all Israel-held Palestinian prisoners, a freeze on all Israeli settlement construction, and the end of the Gaza blockade."

Alternatively, you might adjust the gerund thus: "Among these preconditions were the release of all Israel-held Palestinian prisoners, the freezing of all Israeli settlement construction, and the end of the Gaza blockade."

(Personally, I would also alter that final clause to "... an end to the Gaza blockade." - which I find easier on the eye. But that's a style choice.) Eric Colvin (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 08:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"fatehmedia"[edit]

Fatah own both "fatehmedia.ps" and "fatahmedia.ps", what should be used? 2001:EE0:41C1:9462:D19D:E7A8:B02F:D22C (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add citation to claim with citation needed tag[edit]


−
The prospect of Abbas leaving power in the coming years has also exacerbated tensions.[citation needed]
+
The prospect of Abbas leaving power in the coming years has also exacerbated tensions.

This change adds a citation for the sentence, resolving the citation needed tag.

Excerpt from the source supporting the claim made in the sentence: "Complicating matters is the fact that Abbas heads not just the PA but also the PLO and, within it, Fatah. Each has its own internal mechanisms for choosing a new leadership, but in no case is the process likely to be smooth, as Abbas has turned each body into an appendage of himself, sidelining segments of Fatah that were critical to him in 2005 – local powerbrokers known as the Tanzim, as well as youth and other rank and file – and undermining institutional procedures.123 A former senior Fatah official and PNC member said, “When Abu Mazen passes from the scene, the political vacuum should be dealt with in accordance with the law, but there is no law that can be implemented, because he has destroyed the laws in Palestine by his decrees and actions”."[2]))

Flipped script (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question: So I am just replacing the citation needed tage with the ref below this? Cherrell410 (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure how that is ambiguous, but yes... Thumbs up icon Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Managing Palestine's Looming Leadership Transition". International Crisis Group. Retrieved 23 June 2023.
  2. ^ "Managing Palestine's Looming Leadership Transition". International Crisis Group. Retrieved 23 June 2023.
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the source seems to be about the political vacuum that Abbas would leave behind. There is no mention of the "exacerbated tensions" that the unsourced statement is referring to. @Selfstudier: what do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fiddled with the text and added the cite. Is it OK? Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. That's in line with what the source is saying. Let's see if Flipped script and Mattdaviesfsic agree with it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks all. The text change looks good to me. I noticed the reference in the article is a bare url, so I'd recommend making that a full citation. Flipped script (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fatah Paramilitary Wing?[edit]

Isn’t the al-aqsa martyrs brigades the paramilitary wing of Fatah? Tony808 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fatah disarmed after the Oslo accords, any armed groups claiming their symbols and name like Fatah al Intifada are generally splinters. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flag[edit]

Since the flag of Fatah is apparently protected by copyright I think it might be a good idea to create an infobox icon like with Hezbollah. Charles Essie (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does Fatah still maintain militant groups?[edit]

The way the intro section is worded is ambiguous. It says Fatah “has maintained militant groups”. Ok, it has in the past but Does it still maintain militant groups, yes or no? Armed maybe, but militant? I can’t find any secondary source evidence that groups like Al Asifah are still active. If the answer is no, then it should say Fatah has maintained militant groups but as of 2024, does no longer. Otherwise I, as a reader, am left wondering whether Fatah is not only armed, but still has militant factions engaging in terrorist acts. I thought they formally renounced the Al Aqsa martyrs brigades Wickster12345 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories