body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Society B‑class
WikiProject iconHamas has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do.Vital articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital articlesTemplate:Vital articlevital articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

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

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

Option 1: Such a statement would equate Zionism with imperialism, which is, to say the least, an extremely contentious matter and utterly inappropriate for Wikivoice. Infoboxes should generally err on the side of caution regarding potentially controversial, let alone inflammatory, claims.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether Zionism is imperialist or not is unrelated to whether Hamas ideologically believes itself to be anti-imperialist. Who said the internal ideologies of organizations are academically accurate? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zionist state is undoubtedly a settler-colonial, imperialist and irredentist entity; which was founded after the ethnic cleansing of native Palestinians. It currently occupies territories of the State of Palestine and Syria. During 1980s, it invaded Lebanon and occupied southern Lebanon for nearly 15 years. (until it got defeated and expelled militarily) It has also been aggressively annexing more and more Palestinian lands.
Many Jewish dissidents criticize or oppose such imperialist, irredentist and expansionist policies; but its a fact that the Zionist state itself is a settler-colonial and imperial entity. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTAFORUM Drsmoo (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 Most of the sources dont describe it in such way so it will be wp:undue to do so
Shrike (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 2: In addition to news reports, there are plenty of academic sources discussing the anti-imperialism of Hamas. I dont know why an academic source which cited the anti-imperialist character of Hamas movement was erased repeatedly from this page.
Publisher: Haymarket Books

"Nowhere did the Zionist left bother to respond to analysts like Azmi Bishara, who time and again emphasized that in supporting Hamas, the Palestinian people were declaring that they opposed the former PA policies, which had succumbed to Israeli dictates. Nor did their general political view allow them to relate to the anti-imperialist essence inherent in Hamas's resistance.."[2]

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

    There is also a nationalist and anti-imperial dimension to most Islamic militancy. Hamas is a fundamentalist movement in the sense that it advocates a state based on strict conformity to Islamic law, and the followers of Hamas are expected to follow a strictly Islamic code of conduct. At the same time, however, Hamas is clearly a Palestinian nationalist movement that echoes most of the traditional demands of the Palestinian Liberation Organization before it accepted the idea of the partition of pre-1948 Palestine into a Jewish state on 78 percent of the land and a Palestinian state on the remaining 22 percent[3]

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

    These qualifications, however, do not necessarily weaken my claim that the thought and practice of PIJ and Hamas derive from two different political traditions. First, both movements opposed Western colonialism and its complicity in the crimes of the Israeli occupation. Yet, Hamas's theorization about the instrumental Zionist-Western relationship made it explore the division of responsibilities in the liberation struggle. That is, the movement explored the issue of who had to bear the greatest costs of "Zionists and imperialist projects." Hamas concluded that liberation could not be borne by the Palestinian resistance alone. Hroub thus argues that "one finds evidence of the line of thinking [in Hamas] that originated in the 1970s... that is, an Islamic state [should first] be established outside (Palestine), and such a state should take a lion's share of the responsibility for liberation." Accordingly, Hamas never expected the First Intifada to lead to the liberation of Palestine. This conclusion would necessarily distinguish Hamas from PIJ, with the confidence of the latter in the Palestinian masses and their armed struggle. As Hatina notes: "A general enlistment of the Muslim world to join the struggle in Palestine [was] acknowledged as impractical [by PIJ]. The main burden, in consequence, at least in the initial phase, [had to] fall on the Muslims of Palestine.
    Second, these differing views on the division of responsibilities, and the realism of the Palestinian struggle, would necessarily affect their approach to the West and the application of their anti-colonial analysis in daily and diplomatic practices.[4]

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

    Hamas was founded in December 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin and his followers as a branch of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood had a long history in the Middle East as an anti-imperialist organization seeking to establish Arab governments ruled by a strict interpretation of Islam....
    From the beginning Hamas saw itself as a distinct, religious trend and refused to join the PLO. Hamas sought to merge a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam with anti-imperialism.[5]

As everyone can see, numerous academic sources have clearly described Hamas as an anti-imperialist movement. Outside the academia, it is well-known that various media outlets, political and civilian activists across the world, describe Hamas movement as anti-imperialist.
Due to the settler-colonial nature of Zionist nationalism, Zionists of all political persuasions attempt to deny the anti-imperialist character of Hamas insurgents. (as mentioned in the above listed academic sources)
I view these ongoing, repeated attempts to remove and censor the well-sourced content regarding anti-imperialism of Hamas insurgents as part of the Western-centric systemic bias prevelant in this "online encyclopaedia". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option #2: There appears to be plenty of evidence that Hamas views its own activities through an anti-imperialist lense, and by contrast, no evidence contradicting this and asserting that it does not. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option #2, although it would would benefit from the addition of ideaologies such as nationalism, Palestinian self-determinaton, etc. Estep00 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 2 per all above Parham wiki (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 2 per provided sources. If some disputing sources could be found, I wouldn't be opposed to Option 3, but I don't think Option 1 is an option at this point. Loki (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also did a search of sources in Portuguese and Swedish out of curiosity and found articles from Göteborgs-Posten editor Adam Cwejman (https://www.gp.se/ledare/sovjets-propaganda-präglar-fortfarande-bilden-av-israel-1.114466524) and Brazilian columnist Denis Lerrer Rosenfield in O Estado de S. Paulo (https://web.archive.org/web/20231106065608/https://www.estadao.com.br/opiniao/denis-lerrer-rosenfield/dicionario-da-ignominia/) criticising some leftist figures' pro-Hamas sympathy on anti-imperialist reasoning. An analyst from the Instituto de Estudos Políticos [pt] (https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/hamas/gaza/dina-matos-ferreira-terroristas-como-atores-da-guerra-um-guia-para-as-percecoes/20231027/653c0233d34e65afa2f6ebe6) most explicitly opposes this label, contending that Hamas is linked to 'Islamic imperialism' and the spread of Sharia. John Gray (https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-10-19/john-gray-philosopher-the-west-has-a-false-view-of-hamas-as-an-anti-colonial-movement-it-has-more-in-common-with-isis.html) rejects the anti-colonial label on the group, which is similar. So if option 2 is taken, I think both the supporting and dissenting views on 'anti-imperiaism' should be added to the article body or it would be pushing an outdated and one-sided viewpoint. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 2 per provided sources, and related explanations by the users who selected Option-2. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Option 1, sure they describe themselves as "anti-imperialist", but this is empty propaganda and not a significant aspect of the organization. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, none of the editors who oppose the inclusion of well-sourced content have actually provided any academic source. Either they make WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments against Hamas, or in one case, bring up biased & partisan opinion pieces.
Here is another academic source stating that Hamas movement is anti-imperialist.[7]
It is well-known that Hamas movement is widely described as an anti-imperialist movement in the academia. There is no need to ask the personal opinion of other editors to include this well-recognized content. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m not opposed to including it but it should be included along with many of the sources I listed. And sorry, but many of those “biased & partisan opinion pieces” like The Atlantic, CNN, and El Pais are considered acceptable by most Wiki editors. If you’re advocating the addition of your sources while saying mine should be excluded from the article, it would not be in line with Wiki policy as WP:RSOPINION states that op-eds in mainstream Western outlets are allowed, just not as assertions in Wikivoice (where conflicting sources should be included).
Also do you have a source from no further back to the start of this war that still contends Hamas is anti-imperialist? Because many European commentators do not seem to agree with the description now. Considering the Hamas attack made headlines all over the globe for the past month, your content (though adequately sourced) would qualify for a dated template. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Honig-Parnass, Haddad, Tikva, Toufic (2007). "10: Expanding Regionally, Resisting Locally". Between the Lines. Haymarket Books. p. 297. ISBN 978-1931859-44-8.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Honig-Parnass, Haddad, Tikva, Toufic (2007). "10: Expanding Regionally, Resisting Locally". Between the Lines. Haymarket Books. p. 297. ISBN 978-1931859-44-8.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Hinnells, John; Munson, Henry (2010). "21: Fundamentalism". The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-203-86876-8.
  4. ^ Skare, Erik (2021). A History of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. New York, NY 10006, USA: Cambridge University Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-1-108-84506-9.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. ^ Erlich, Robert, Reese, Baer (2016). Conversations with Terrorists: Middle East Leaders on Politics, Violence, and Empire. 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10007, USA: Routledge. p. 367. ISBN 978-1-1384-6788-0.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Litvak, Meir (Jan 1998). "The Islamization of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: The Case of Hamas". Middle Eastern Studies. 34 (1): 148–163. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  7. ^ L. Gevin, James (2021). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History (4 ed.). New York, NY 10006, USA: Cambridge University Press. p. 237. ISBN 978-1-108-48868-6.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location (link)

Re: Hamas’ “perceived anti-Israeli stance”[edit]

Hi,

I’m not extended autoconfirmed, or I would otherwise have made this edit request myself, but I have a small suggestion for improvement to this article.

In the third paragraph of the lead, the following sentence appears:

Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its perceived anti-Israeli stance. (emphasis added)

It feels like “perceived anti-Israeli stance” is a bit disingenuous. There is nothing purely “perceptual” about Hamas’ stance towards Israel—it is quite real, and quite obvious. Whatever lens through which one views the current escalation in violence, this sentence nearly reads like a joke in light thereof. Hamas’ charter literally calls for the annihilation of the State of Israel through jihad. In fact, just two sentences before this, the lead states:

[…] it has pursued a policy of jihad (armed struggle) against Israel.

I would suggest changing the sentence in question to something like “Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its anti-Israeli stance.” or “Hamas has gained widespread popularity within Palestinian society for its active anti-Israeli stance.”

Thanks for your work and consideration,

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Perceived" [2] Bar Harel (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support this generally, but can't help feel "anti-Israel stance" is a bit weak anyway. Can we bulk it out? I'd imagine a lot of sources discuss the legitimacy crisis of Fatah and stagnation of Oslo? I feel that would be a stronger sentence. Yr Enw (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Moldova as state that designated Hamas as a terrorist org[edit]

Here is the source - terrorist orgs list of Moldova national antiterrorist committee 2019. https://antiteror.sis.md/sites/default/files/document/attachments/osis_14_2019.pdf Zaygle (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit.
 Question:
@Zaygle, could you provide additional information around this so that it can be better cited? Possibly around page 21–23 is what you’re referring to? I have attempted to translate it using machine translation, but I don’t want to rely on that alone.
@Jmabel, hello! I noticed you were listed as a previously active Romanian translator who has made contributions in the previous weeks—would you be able to assist in verifying this as a reliable and accurate source? Thanks!
– Pedantical (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pedantical: it's a government site, so presumably reliable, including that it cites for the position being official. Further, it mentions that this was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Moldova (MONITORUL OFICIAL). The document conflates involvement in terrorist activities (activități teroriste) and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (proliferare a armelor de distrugere în masă), so one possible question is that it could be conceivably argued that somehow they fell under the latter rather than the former, but given the nature of Hamas that would be quite a stretch. The mention of Hamas doesn't so much single out a Moldovan position as cite and quote a list [of] people, groups, and entities provided in article I of the Common Position of the Council of the European Union, 27 December 2001 (LISTA persoanelor, grupurilor și a entităților prevăzute la articolul 1 din Poziția Comună a Consiliului Uniunii Europene din 27 decembrie 2001 (2001/931/PESC) ). Under that heading, the list of groups and entities (Grupuri și entități) on page 22 of the PDF includes „Hamas”, inclusiv „Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem” ("Hamas", including "Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem"). So it is clearly an official Moldovan government position, but it is simply an endorsement of an EU list, not something originating in Moldova. I presume that answers your question. Since Moldova is not yet an EU member, their official endorsement and quotation of the EU list should presumably count as a separate action, and that Moldova considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization.
Please ping me if anyone thinks there is any problem in my translation or reasoning: I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 18:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your help here! Greatly appreciated. Take care,
– Pedantical (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wording in lead[edit]

the lead section says "Hamas is widely considered to be the "dominant political force" within the Palestinian territories.". This is supported by three citations:

The latest poll from Gaza (July 2023) indicated 11% support for Hamas and 32% for Fatah. (Not 100% sure about the quality of the poll, though Ian Bremmer seems to think its legit). Overall this doesnt seem like good enough and especially not recent enough sourcing to support such a bold claim in the lead section. jonas (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is interesting. Washington Institute also polled Gazans in July 2023 and their findings are somewhat different Overall, 57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas... —though Gazans who express this opinion of Hamas are fewer than the number of Gazans who have a positive view of Fatah (64%). They also found that Fatah is more popular (which was surprising for me!) but still more than half support Hamas. The difference could be due to differences in the wording of questions and the interpretation of the responses.
We can probably include the poll results, but the popular support for a faction doesn't necessarily mean that it is the "dominant political force," especially in the absence of elections. Alaexis¿question? 10:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's another survey, made by Arab Barometer right before the start of the war. They asked a slightly different question "Which party, if any, do you feel closest to?" and as far as I can understand it was a single answer question. Fatah and Hamas were chosen by 30% and 27% respectively. We'd have to summarise all these surveys somehow. Alaexis¿question? 10:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Next Palestinian legislative election#Opinion polls Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know about that article, I think it belongs to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records :) Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the public support section has some polling from 2014 but would need some updating with these polls. I don't see anyone arguing for keeping the wording in the lead, so I'm gonna remove that part for now until there's consensus to more accurately describe the current position of Hamas. jonas (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The latest poll I could find for Hamas' popularity is from 2021[3], and nothing from since then.VR talk 00:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The polls in the above link go through mid 2023. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Providing quote requested[edit]

@Corriebertus: regarding this edit[4]. The 2005 is relevant to the two-state solution, because Seurat (page 17) says:

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

There used to be an inline reference there but it got removed somehow. VR talk 03:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"One-party state"[edit]

There was a longer discussion on Hamas being an oppressive one-party state at Talk:Gaza Strip. I'll ping all the participants there. Makeandtoss (Iskandar323—Selfstudier—nableezy—TaBaZzz—Homerethegreat—Dovidroth—Jean-de-Nivelle)

I don't dispute that Hamas is oppressive, but Gaza Strip is not a state! Hamas has never declared independence, nor has any entity ever recognized Gaza Strip as an independent state. Hamas, and every one else, continue to view Gaza Strip as an integral part of the Palestinian territories and the partially recognized State of Palestine. VR talk 03:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why it was always de facto , but Hamas is effectively ruled seperetly from the rest of the Palestinian Territories (Whole Palestinian Civil War, Fatah-Hamas episode). And since Hamas has opressed opposition to it, it makes it effectively, One party rule. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even de facto is not true. The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority pays the salaries of civil servants in Gaza Strip[5][6], and Israel controls the population registry for Gaza Strip (and West Bank)[7]. As far as I know, Gaza Strip residents can only get a Palestinian Authority passport - there is no such thing as a "Hamas passport". And the United Nations (and others) consider Gaza Strip under Israeli occupation, just like the West Bank.VR talk 17:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UN recognition has nothing to do with this. Usually the term "de facto state" is used precisely for states that are not widely recognised (Abkhazia, TRNC, Somaliland, etc).
In case of Gaza under Hamas, there are many sources which apply this term to Gaza, for example
  • Bombs and Ballots. Governance by Islamist Terrorist and Guerrilla Groups, p. 128
  • Between State and Non-State. Politics and Society in Kurdistan-Iraq and Palestine, p. 92 Alaexis¿question? 20:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In each of these cases, Abkhazia, Somaliland, the territory itself views itself as an independent state. Where is the evidence that Hamas views itself as an independent state? The claim that Gaza Strip is an independent state is a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. It is telling that, while Abkhazia, Somaliland, TRNC etc are all listed at List of states with limited recognition, Gaza Strip is not listed there. VR talk 04:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What would you propose as an alternative to convey that Gaza is run by a single party that exercises de facto sovereignty within the territory it controls? --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jdog1027 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Wikipedia is not interested in what scholars believe”[edit]

Corriebertus added[8]

This is much too vague. Wikipedia is not interested in what scholars “believe”: belief is religion and is therefore a private affair. But if the Wiki contributor who added this sentence means to say or suggest, those six referenced authors state in their books that they have read in that Hamas charter the Hamas willingness to accept the two-state solution of Israel next to a P. state on West Bank, Gaza Strip plus East Jerusalem, then please, say so clearly, give a citation from at least one of those authors, and tell where in the charter they’ve read that vow; because the charter is public, we all can read it ourselves, and points 18 and 19 in it: “...establishment of "Israel" is ..illegal ..contravenes the ..rights of the Palestinian people .. There shall be no recognition of ..the Zionist entity”, etc., don’t in the least sound as such an acceptance of aforementioned two-state solution. If however none of those six authors (who all have no Wikipedia page testifying their good reputation) even tells in their referenced book where they have read such (contradictory!) vow to such two-state solution in that Hamas charter, Wikipedia should not be the place to misleadingly publish (in a section called Hamas#Two-state solution) those apparently unbased (wishful?) fantasies of them as if they were relevant deductions or reliable facts on this topic.

So wikipedia does actually care how scholars interpret primary sources, please see WP:SECONDARY. In fact, wikipedia users interpreting primary sources would be considered WP:OR. I have given the page numbers for each of the books of the authors. Have you gone and verified the sources yourself? Just for your peace of mind, let me give a couple of quotes.

Brenner says

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

Ayoob says

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

VR talk 16:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in what scholars “believe” Since when? Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it conflicted with the personal belief of a Wikipedia editor, obviously. nableezy - 18:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hamas 1988 Charter[edit]

LEAD seems to completely ignore 1988 charter and its anti-Semitic text and rhetoric, as pointed out by numerous scholars. A widely discussed subject, it deserves attention in Lead. Furthermore, Overdue Weight on 2017 charter that seemed to show moderation in Hamas. Despite contrary actions as demonstrated in Hamas leadership speeches and actions (example - 2023 Hamas attack on Israel).

In its 1988 charter, Hamas advocated for the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state encompassing the combined territories of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[9][1] It called for the military destruction of Israel, utilized antisemitic tropes, and endorsed Jihad against Jews until Judgement Day. In an attempt to moderate its image, in 2017 a revised charter was issued, replacing anti-Semitic calls with a focus on anti-Zionism. [2]

Slightly improved wording upon a @Dovidroth version I encountered earlier. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bruce Hoffman is a biased Zionist and this article is an opinion piece. That so many use this as the “golden source” about Hamas is very telling.
Focus should remain on the 2017 Revised Hamas Charter and the elimination of antisemitic rhetoric. This doc was written 30 after the original 1988 Covenant. Circumstances in Palestine in 1988 were much different than they were, and currently are, in 2017. To continue focusing on the antisemitism in the 1988 covenant is lazy. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added a source from The Economist below :). Homerethegreat (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's important to note that Hamas' acceptance of the 1967 borders did not just happen in 2017. Hamas signed documents that implicitly or explicitly recognized this borders in 2005, 2007, 2011 and 2012 (see this scholarly source I quoted). Hamas leaders have also made dozens of statements during those years calling for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The 2023 attack has nothing to do with the 1967 borders discussion.
WP:RSEDITORIAL says "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". Why on earth would we remove the 5-10 scholarly sources we have in the lead over the 1967 borders and replace with a couple of newspaper op-eds? VR talk 04:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding Hoffman, I'll add a different source then. I think The Economist piece will serve us better. Here it is [10] Homerethegreat (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Next to scholarly sources, a newspaper is a poor source. An editorial piece even more so. nableezy - 16:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright so adding scholary sources.
1)Rensmann, L. (2020). The Contemporary Globalization of Political Antisemitism: Three Political Spaces and the Global Mainstreaming of the “Jewish Question” in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, 3(1), p. 90.‏
"Hamas focuses on violence against Jews in Israel by means of rockets and terror acts. The Hamas Charter remains aggressively antisemitic and contains references to the notorious, century-old Russian anti-Jewish conspiracy myth forgery of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; later to be used as Nazi propaganda. The charter accuses Jews “of relying on secret societies to foment global economic and political disasters” and calls on Hamas followers to “prepare for ‘the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war".
2)Spoerl, J. S. (2020). Parallels between Nazi and Islamist Anti-Semitism. Jewish Political Studies Review, 31(1/2), p. 216 "First, anti-Semitism is central to Hamas propaganda, as documented
copiously below, and Hamas has not renounced or ceased producing such
propaganda. For example, in April 2017, just as Hamas was about to release its
May 2017 “Document,” Hamas member of the Palestinian legislature Marwan
Abu Ras gave a Friday sermon at a mosque in the Gaza Strip in which he said,
“History attests that in every era, the Jews were the most abhorred of people.
Throughout history, the most hated race was the Jewish race…. Why did
[Hitler] hate the Jews? Because they are a people of treachery and betrayal….
Therefore, we can never accept the Jews…"
3)Fastenbauer, R. (2020). Islamic antisemitism: Jews in the Qur’an, Reflections of European antisemitism, Political anti-Zionism: Common codes and differences. Confronting Antisemitism from the Perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, diedit oleh Armin Lange, Kerstin Mayerhofer, Dina Porat, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 284 "Direct calls for use of violence in the text of
"the Hamas charter also reveal its antisemitic character" Homerethegreat (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each of these sources are still referencing the 1988 Charter.
The 1988 Charter was written predominantly by one person -- Abdel Fattah al-Dukhan -- and the Charter became a source of much internal debate and controversy and embarrassment within the organization for decades afterwards. This is cited by both Paola Caridi and Azzam Tamimi in their books on the organization, based on interviews with their leadership.
Internally, there was a logistical difficulty overwriting the charter due to the verbiage in Article 11 describing Palestine as a "waqf" and the unavailability of members needed for democratic discussion towards changing it due to their imprisonment, but as cited directly by Caridi in "Hamas: Resistance to Government" regarding internal attitudes towards the charter: "But the embarrassment is obvious. In this as in other cases, the movement sacrifices its pragmatic side on the altar of its unity, because it considers essential for its solidity that its unique democratic centralism not be undermined. Abandoning the Charter would not be possible even for those who opposed it from the very beginning unless an extensive discussion took place including all Hamas’ different groupings ... Among the leadership who have been heard over recent years, the only one to have publicly admitted his opposition to the Mithaq is Sayyed Abu Musameh, who in October 2008 revealed that both he and Moussa Abu Marzouq – one of the Islamist movement’s most important figures – had come out against the document ... In truth, the first public statements which attempted to put the value of the Charter into its proper perspective appeared already during an earlier period, between 2003 and 2005."
There is vast evidence of Hamas's actual ideology and political orientation contradicting the charter's stated views:
1) The speech by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin at [11]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2eXDd6liG0
2) The 2007 Wikileak stating: "... However, some Hamas leaders have said that while they will not recognize Israel, they are prepared to accept a temporary solution based on establishing an independent Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, with east Jerusalem as its capital and without settlements."
3) The verbiage in their '05 Political Manifesto prior to the '06 election
4) The letter Haniyeh wrote to the UN in 2009 expressing interest in a two-party state along the 1967 borders
5) The 2012 interview with Marzouk in the Jewish newspaper Forward where he states explicitly:
“We don’t have originally something against the Jew as a religion or against the Jew as a human being,” he said. “The problem is that the Israelis kicked out my family. They have occupied my land and injured thousands of Palestinians…. I have to differentiate between the Jew who did this problem to my people and [American] Jews like you, who never did anything bad to my people."
and
“We have many, many policies that are not going with the charter,” he said. “But when you talk about ‘change the charter,’ there are many Hamas people talking about changing the charter. That’s a debate inside Hamas, because there are many, many policies against what’s written in the charter.”
6) Their public denunciation in 2019 of Fathi Ahmad's anti-semitic statements Deadlyhandsomeman (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, none of those references have anything to do with the 1967 borders and the antisemitism the first source references is from the 1988 charter, not the 2017 one. How about we add this: "Hamas's 1988 charter was widely considered antisemitic, but its 2017 charter removed this antisemitism and clarified its struggle was with Zionists not Jews."[3] VR talk 15:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jaeger, David A.; Paserman, M. Daniele (2006). "Israel, the Palestinian Factions, and the Cycle of Violence". The American Economic Review. 96 (2): 45–49. ISSN 0002-8282.
  2. ^ Bruce Hoffman. "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology". The Atlantic. Retrieved October 20, 2023.
  3. ^ Seurat 2022, p. 17.
Categories