Talk:Hamas

Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist group which builds schools and hospitals and provides other social needs for Palestinians. Hamas is classified by the US State Department as a terrorist organization,

this opening line is questionable. it states that the US Govt has declared an organization builds schools, etc, is terrorist. Not a creditable assertion. Hamas is a multi-faceted organization that engages in funding school construction (does it actually build schools or contract for their construction?) and engages in terrorism. Hamas is known in the West for its terrorist activities. This characterization of Hamas is due to the behavior of Hamas as well as the media reporting on this behavior. OneVoice 20:31, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

modify first sentence in effort to prevent revert war.

Hamas is a multi-faceted organization that engages in at least two distinct activites: chartible works and terrorism.

OneVoice 21:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Political or spiritual leader?

If the following sentence refers to the recently assassinated "sheik", then it implies that the sheik was not merely a spiritual leader. I'd like the 2 articles on Hamas and Ahmed Yassin to be congruent, i.e., don't say one thing in one article and another thing in the other. Either Yassin ordered killings or he didn't. Ordering killings is either consistent with spiritual leadership, or it isn't. Someone who orders killings is generally regarded as a political leader, aren't they? Or is someone saying that Hamas had a leader higher than Yassin, to whom Yassin was subordinate? Let's get this straight, if possible. --Uncle Ed 13:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The organization's political current head is unknown,as his position cannot be replaced per se.

He was both a spiritual leader and a political leader. The extent to which he controlled the organization in its daily business is disputed, though it is clear that he gave it the general direction. It is not only "the supporters of Hamas" who use the phrase "spiritual leader", unless you think that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the New York Times are Hamas supporters. (I guess some people do.) Even the Israeli description goes somewhat in this direction by calling him "the godfather of the suicide bombers" rather than the father. --Zero 13:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Goals and controversy

I made some radical changes to the beginning of the article. I guess I better wait a couple of hours before making any more changes. No point adding text, if it's just going to get reverted. Let's try to find a way to incorporate all relevant facts and POV accurately and neutrally. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is always usefull and in fact also suggested by Wkipedia, that in such cases, you provide a minimum of explanation of why you changed someone else's contribution. You probably have good reasons, but why not share these with us? --Rudi Dierick 17:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islamic state in Palestine

How does Hamas define "Palestine", in terms of its stated goal of establishing "an Islamic state in Palestine"?

Is Jordan located within Palestine, or outside of it?

Perhaps they define Palestine as consisting of the following areas of land:

If so, perhaps we could identify the phrase Islamic state in Palestine as a slogan. --Uncle Ed 18:29, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reality is often stranger than fiction. Thank you whoever you are. user:manco

Conflict with PLO

We need more info about Hamas's relationship with PLO.

This position has brought it into conflict with the PLO, which in 1988 recognized Israel's right to exist.

First of all, the PLO "recognition" of Israel's right to exist seems a bit flimsy. Is it widely regarded as sincere? I heard that it was just a bit of PR to get critics of their back, and that the PLO would L-O-V-E to push Israel into the Mediterranean Sea, just as much as Hamas. Am I misinformed, or what?

Let's research the various reasons Hamas has conflict with PLO, then put the above sentence back with repairs. --Uncle Ed 19:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wether it seems flimsy or not is irrelevant, it's the official line and should be stated so. Americas interest in a Palestinian state also seems a bit flimsy but they officially say they are committed to it.--Omar 11:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the child suicide bombing link for the following reasons: 1. it seems redundant to suicide bombings, and can be linked to from there. 2. It doesn't seem quite appropriate, war is war. 'Hamas' is a diff and major subject.sunja 02:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the following profoundly encylopaedic statements:

As reports leak out of Israeli Military buldozing crops, cattle and houses, constricting roads and fencing people from their fields and livelyhoods hamas is seen as sadly supportive of public suicide as a desperate death cry to the world that the occupation has failed to bring what early zionists called "the benifits of our presence" to the Plestinians who experience infant mortality rate 10 times that of unoccupied Israel in it's 50 year effort to expell them from their homes sustanance. It is horrifying and mornfull that "Each Israeli killing only seems to enhance the popularity of Hamas on the street, particularly in its Gaza stronghold, where it draws recruits from a society that is extremely poor and deeply religious." NYT

Watcher 07:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh Watcher...i am that one that added that quote from The New York Times. I do not remember the section that you have added:

As reports leak out of Israeli Military buldozing crops, cattle and houses, constricting roads and fencing people from their fields and livelyhoods hamas is seen as sadly supportive of public suicide as a desperate death cry to the world that the occupation has failed to bring what early zionists called "the benifits of our presence" to the Plestinians who experience infant mortality rate 10 times that of unoccupied Israel in it's 50 year effort to expell them from their homes sustanance. It is horrifying and mornfull that

is distinctly different from the rest...is not in the style of the New York Times...has two spelling errors in a single word...most unlike the Times...it is most likely your personal addition.

To anonymous: I have not added this garbage, in fact I deleted it and moved it to the talkpage. It seems that somebody has messed with my comment on the talkpage. The paragraph I have deleted actually included these lines you are blaming for writing. Anyway, I certainly agree that such statements have no place at the Wiki. Whether or not they come from New York Times I will leave on the conscience of the person who posted it to the article with such an attribution. Watcher 22:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous, I am removing your quote from NYTimes, as follows:

"Each Israeli killing only seems to enhance the popularity of Hamas on the street, particularly in its Gaza stronghold, where it draws recruits from a society that is extremely poor and deeply religious." NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/international/middleeast/25HAMA.html)

I feel that putting it as another sentence in an introductory paragraph is not NPOV in that it gives undue credence to this claim, because the attribution is placed at the end of the sentence and is deemphasized. To make attribution of the point of view clear, it should say something like "And according to New York Times as of 200x" that's what is happening.

Note moreover that "killings" is not a neutral term that has no place in the intro paragraph; a proper encyclopedic disambiguation may include "every Israeli assassination of a Hamas militant", or "every shooting of a stone throwing teenager" or "every housewife killed by a stray bullet during Israeli battle against Palestinian gunmen" etc. However, we obviosly cannot edit a quote from NYTimes, so if you want to keep this gem of insight in the article, you should move it to some place that is more appropriate, such as the outside world's view of events or Hamas recruiting in Gaza. Or better yet, just summarize what it is trying to say in a neutral manner. Nobody is going to ask you to provide sources here for self-evident statements. I look forward to constructive comments.

Also, please do not modify my comments on this talkpage any more, as it is rude and deceptive. I am not modifying yours, am I? Watcher 23:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

History

There appear to be irregularities, can somebody clear them up? In the intro it states that it was founded in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, but later it states under history that it was funded in the 1970's and 1980's by Saudi Arabia and Syria.--Omar 11:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

and this "Many experts agree that while Israel never supported Hamas directly"...UPI floated a story that "beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years"[1] (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r)...but others contend this is one of those Fantasias for Wisner's Wurlitzer.[2] (http://emperor.vwh.net/letters/cia.htm) Maybe elaboration is needed there... Kwantus 17:59, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Jayjg please refrain from stalking and unnecessary edits

I know Wikipedia is a collaborative effort but you are making edits that add no significant value or new information apparently just so you can "have the last word". Control issues should be checked. Alberuni 05:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, as I've requested several times now, please focus on the articles themselves, rather than on ad hominem statements regarding me. I will also point out that the charge of "stalking" is laughable, given that I was editing this page (and therefore it was on my watchlist) before you even joined Wikipedia, and that my most recent edits on Sept. 26 also precede your first edits to the page. If there is any "stalking" going on, it's obviously not by me. Jayjg 05:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After we had our Talk/Israel disagreements over whether Palestinians should have their demographic existence in OT recognized as much as the Israelis who live in the OT, you came to the Hamas page and made a series of totally unnecessary reversions to my edits, reversions to your reversions, etc regarding Israel's assassination yesterday and Hamas goals. Your edits added nothing and were, in fact, awkwardly worded and poorly composed. You made them out of simple spiteful editorial bias, to erase my work. You always want the final word and the article must fit your pro-Israeli POV. I suspect you are hoping to drive people away from Wikipedia who don't share your narrow views. It is immature and destructive behavior. I will continue working on various pages and hope for you to mature. Alberuni 06:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look at the history of the edits on the page; I had edited the article twice on Sep 26 before you appeared (for the very first time) and made your edits. I then returned to the page a few hours later and continued to edit it, incorporating the NPOV material that you brought to the page, while excluding the highly POV changes you inserted. I also have not changed subseqent NPOV edits you have made; my only concern here is maintaining NPOV. In any event, I again strongly encourage you to restrict your comments to discussing the article contents, rather than continually and rather incessantly making ad hominem and poisoning the well comments about me. Jayjg 14:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good edits today

You've made a number of good edits today, Alberuni. If you continue in this vein we should have no trouble working together on articles in the future. Jayjg 17:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Alberuni 17:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought the vast majority of your edits on the article today were also good. Thanks for making them. Jayjg 15:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why delete this

Top Hamas leaders, Khaled Mashal and Imad al-Alami, have either fled or been expelled from Syria. Mashal appeared briefly in Egypt before going into hiding. al-Alami appears to have gone to Iran. Syria denies that the two where expelled. (end of article) (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/482037.html)

Not infrequently we read in the NYT that the United States is pressuring Syria to take measures against Hamas. This may be a response to that pressure. An Syrian source states that the two (quoting article) "should find safer territory, and Alami reportedly went to Iran while Mashal surfaced briefly in Cairo and then disappeared. Syria has officially denied it kicked out Mashal and other Hamas chiefs." Perhaps I have unfairly represented the matter. Help making the paragraph more accurate would be appreciated. Lance6Wins 13:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An unnamed Palestinian source quoted in Haaretz discussing Syrian government activities is rather speculative. The article even conflicts with earlier Haaretz articles that placed Khakled Mashal in Cairo one week prior to the assassination of Sheikh Khalil. These events are often distorted by disinformation from many sources. Elucidating motives of governments and groups is especially fraught with bias. Every effort should be made to keep Wikipedia NPOV and fact-based. There is no point in an encyclopedia of speculation. Let's leave that to the newspapers, editorial pages and foreign policy journals. Alberuni 14:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I dont understand the "even conflicts with earlier Haaretz articles that placed Khakled Mashal in Cairo one week prior to the assassination of Sheikh Khalil". the second article does NOT say that Mashal went to Cairo after the assassination. Rather it seems to say that they moved after the suicide bombing on "August 31 that killed 16 people". Am I misreading the article referenced above? These two article appear to be consistent. I dont understand we should not regard them as fact? Do we have an conflicting information? Lance6Wins 16:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anon 209.135.35.83 wrote "Top Hamas leaders, Khaled Mashal and Imad al-Alami, have either fled or been expelled from Syria. Mashal appeared briefly in Egypt before going into hiding. al-Alami appears to have gone to Iran. Syria denies that the two where expelled. (end of article) (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/482037.html)" This was not even a factually accurate summary of the Haaretz article which itself was hearsay - so I deleted it. If you can add some factual substantiated information that adds to this article, please feel free to do so. Alberuni 17:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should Hamas be described as terrorist in Wikipedia?

The US and Israel claim Hamas is a terrorist organization that targets civilians for violence in pursuit of political goals. Hamas considers the Israeli occupation of Palestine to be terrorism and Hamas' para-military activities are a form of self-defense against a militarily superior foe. Hamas does not consider any Israelis to be civilians because they view all of Israel to be occupied Palestine, hence all Israelis are combatants. They also cite the militarized nature of Israeli society, universal conscription, and life-long reserve duty as reasons why no Israelis are civilians. Whether we agree with Israel or Hamas shouldn't be the issue. Referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization is POV and if it is done, the reference should be clear, i.e. "The US considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization" "Israeli spokemen claim they will hunt down and kill Hamas terrorists...." etc. Alberuni 16:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, terrorism is defined as violence targeting civilians indescriminately to achieve political goals. Whether a person is a civilian is decided at the personal level, i.e. it depends on whether a person engages in military activities ; it is not decided at the level of citizenship. There is some truth in the argument that Israel is a highly militarised society ; however, this fails to explain the rationale for killing children who are clearly civilians. So it is clearly NPOV to call Hamas terrorist. In general, I think the term terrorist should be avoided though (in all Wikipedia articles), used may be once in every article and when it is necessary. I think the term shouldn't be repeated over and over again, because it degrades the quality of articles, making them loaded with emotion, and the narrative reads more like a rant then.

However it would be very intersting to emphasise the justification which Hamas are offering for their terrorist acts. Do they actually explicitly reject terrorism? I know that they never carry out attacks outside Israel - is this the reason? - pir 17:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israelis certainly do not serve "life-long" military duty; in fact, a large majority of Israelis are not on active or reserve military duty. Place of residence does not make someone a "combatant", and "occupation" is not "terrorism" by any rational definition of the word. Many countries (not just the U.S.) consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization. See also Pir's comments. Jayjg 20:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like I wrote initially, it doesn't matter whether you agree with Islamic Hamas "terrorism" or Zionist Israeli "terrorism". The point is that describing a group as terrorist, if they do not describe themselves as such, reflects a POV. Should Wikipedia espouse one side's POV, both sides POVs, or a NPOV? If all Hamas members and supporters can be called terrorists because of specific terrorist acts conducted by individuals affiliated with that religious nationalist enterprise, then all Israelis and their supporters can be called terrorists because of specific terrorist acts conducted by individuals affiliated with that religious nationalist enterprise. Alberuni 21:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The edit in question describes attacks on civilians as terrorist, which they certainly are, regardless of what Hamas would like to imagine. If Hamas thinks red is blue, that does mean we need to "NPOV" all articles now using the word as "described by some as red, but described by Hamas as blue". Jayjg 00:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What consensus? There are 3 comments; yours, mine, and Pir's. Don't try to railroad your POV on that basis. The edit in question does not refer to specific attacks on civilians, it labels Hamas as terrorist and doesn't say alleged or according to Israel, the US or some other source. The source is Jayjg! The issue may seem clear to those with narrow POVs. If you were color-blind, you might be sure that red is green just as a Zionist might be sure that Hamas is terrorist organization. The IDF has been INTENTIONALLY killing scores of civilians EVERY DAY this week yet Zionists perceive IDF violence as justified self-defense. ("Oh sure, it's just collateral damage, unintentional massacre of civilians during a civilized high tech attack on a refugee camp because you know, the Israeli government can't be terrorist, they are the only democracy in the Middle East, etc etc etc" I don't need to hear any more of that regurgitated Zionist propaganda.). You should be intelligent enough to recognize that many people see Hamas violence in the same light that Zionists see IDF violence. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Is Wikipedia supposed to reflect an official or mainstream Israeli or American POV? Or is it going to be a place for objective NPOV information? Alberuni 00:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, pir and I agreed, anyway. Intentional attacks on civilians are terrorist, and this particular edit was about intentional attacks on civilians, not the organization as a whole. Jayjg 02:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"If all Hamas members and supporters can be called terrorists because of.." - but this is not about the members, this is about the organisation. Hamas as an organisation carries out suicide bombings against Israelis. Nobody disputes that.

When we have clearly established facts we can state those facts and we don't need to worry about what this or that political movement says. Objective facts cannot be relativised by political discourse - otherwise we end up with an Orwellian encyclopedia. It is an objective fact that Hamas targets civilians with suicide bombings ; therefore Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Whatever merits their justification may or may not have - it doesn't invalidate objective fact. It is therefore perfectly NPOV for us to state this objective fact.

This reminds me of a rather lengthy debate I had with Jayjg on whether the West Bank barrier should be in the category of walls. I was arguing like here, i.e. that it was an objective fact that a significant portion of the barrier were a wall, and that it could therefore be included in that category. Jayjg was arguing that this would be a NPOV violation because it would endorse one or the other side's view (even going as far as claiming that my reasoning had to be dismissed because I was "taking the Israeli side"!). [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#.22fence.22_vs_.22wall.22_vs_.22security_barrier.22)

I suggest we state that Hamas is a terrorist organisation once in the article, and then avoid this emotional term. - pir 00:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Hamas is going to be labelled a terrorist organization then Israel is also a terrorist organization and it should be mentioned prominently on the pages about Israel. Alberuni 00:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The Israeli government has quite clearly used violence against civilians on numerous occasions, in order to further political goals. Calling the Israeli government terrorist is IMO clearly NPOV. Just as it is perfectly NPOV to call the US government terrorist, or the government of the country where I live, or the Indian government, the Chinese government and many many others. But you need to distinguish between a country and a country's government here.

Unfortunately most people, including Wikipedians, are in denial of these facts, and I won't waste my energy trying to address this problem by editing Wikipedia articles. - pir 01:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pir, stop your ranting against the Jews in Israel. No one sensible believes that the Jews of Israel are out to murder innocent civilians. That's an anti-Zionist libel. You keep using the word "terrorism" in ways that have nothign to do with the dictionary, or even Wikipedia, definition of the term. You are just so full of rage against the Jews in Israel that you turn every article into a tirade against them. Your repeated diatribes are off-topic, and they are just being repeated over and ober. Please stick to the specific topic. If you have something specific to say about the phrasing in this article, then say it. Any other comments are off-topic for this Talk page. RK 01:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

RK, if your accusations made any sense, I'd be offended. However they make no sense, and everybody can read exactly what I wrote and see for themselves that there is not even a remote connection. - pir 02:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pir appears quite reasonable and is stating facts that are relevant to the article. You on the other hand seem easily offended by reasonable statements and make outrageous ad hominem accusations of "anti-Zionist libel" (what is that anyway? Zionism is a political movement deserving of criticism. How can it be libeled? It's not a religion, in case you forgot.). I believe that Israel has intentionally murdered thousands of civilians. If it wasn't intentional the IDF sure has selectively bad aim. They never seem to miss and accidently kill Israeli civilians. Maybe bad luck (or bad karma) just follows them around. Alberuni 01:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Zionism" doesn't even exist anymore. If there's one thing I've learned through the years, it's that anyone who uses the term "Zionist" is completely, 100% antagonistic towards Jews of all sorts. Zionism is not a political movement in any country. The entire point of the Zionist movement was to create a Jewish state. Zionism died in 1948.

I find it interesting that you claim "If Hamas is going to be labelled a terrorist organization then Israel is also a terrorist organization and it should be mentioned prominently on the pages about Israel." and provide zero evidence to support it. It's also not relevant.

This is not a negotiation, where we get to use the word "terrorist" on the Hamas page if you get to use it on the Israel page. This is a quest for truth, however trite and irrational that may be. Your rash demand that you get to call us terrorists is childish and ill-befits the professionality Wikipedia strives for. In any case, if you have a problem with the Israel page please keep it on the Israel page.

I will admit that I am biased. I also am not an expert on this subject, and as such I will not be editing the main page. Trying to be as NPOV as possible, I still think there are some subjects that have been left out. For one, the terrorism (or "guerrilla war," if that makes you happier) aspect of the organization has been glossed over. We've got the Hamas side of the story, and I'm not suggesting we remove it, but perhaps a little more from the other side of the fence. Also, I seem to recall that Hamas has negotiated cease-fires and other agreements with Israel in the past. Why is that not mentioned?

This article is actually fairly close to NPOV. It's not there yet, but with a little work it can be. I would rather have the "Hamas" side clean it up than "my" side, though.

--Khaim 20:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Khaim. While youre points are well made, the debate you are responding to happened 3 1/2 months ago. Since then two of the participants have been banned from Wikipedia for long periods, and one appears to have voluntarily left it. So the only one around is me. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely Israel officially considers Hamas, and all Palestinian (and Lebanese) paramilitaries, to be terrorist organisations not just because they target civilians but because they engage in violence at all, including armed resistance to foreign occupation not targeting civilians. Guerrilla attacks on armed soldiers in occupied land have also been described as "terrorist attacks" by Israeli governments in the past, and still are.

I don't think Hamas should be described as a terrorist organisation on Wikipedia, especially since it is a paramilitary/guerrilla group/resistance group fighting a foreign occupation, in contrast to groups like Al Qaeda which can't be said to be fighting an occupation (at least until Bush and Blair invaded Afghanistan--and especially--Iraq). I think we should instead refer to tactics that constitute "terrorism against civilians" or "war crimes", namely the campaign of suicide bombing against civilians in Israeli cities, as well as the murder of unarmed civilian residents of illegal colonial settlements in the occupied territories.

I agree that Israeli governments have also murdered many, many civilians. If you really get into this, almost every wartime head of state or guerrilla leader is a war criminal.-Kingal86 23:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it would be interesting to see if Israel has an "official" list of groups it considers terrorist, and what groups are on that list. Killing civilians and terrorism are not the same thing; rather, it is the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes that makes something terrorist. Jayjg 23:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kingal86, it's not Wikipedia that's calling Hamas a terrorist group. The article says Hamas is: "regarded by some as a militant organization and by others as a terrorist group. The United States, Canada, Israel and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization." Those sentences are factually correct.

As for the comment that al-Qaeda can't be said to be fighting an occupation, they came into existence (in a slightly different form) to resist the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; and went on to fight what they saw as the American occupation of Saudi Arabia following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Their attack on the World Trade Center was part of their effort to get American troops out of the Middle East, an effort which has intensified with the American invasion of Iraq.

Just because resistance to perceived occupation is a goal doesn't mean a group can't be called a terrorist group. The fundamental issue in deciding whether an action is "terrorist" is whether civilians are deliberately targeted by a non-governmental group in the absence of rules of engagement and a declaration of war. In the case of Hamas, also bear in mind that it's fighting its own government (the Palestinian Authority) as well as the Israeli government and people.

Wikipedia's job is to report what is being said out there, in books, newspapers and by interested groups and goverments. We should report it fairly and accurately without letting our own views intervene. Often it will be a matter of saying: X is regarded by some as a guerrilla group and by others as a terrorist organization." If that's the truth, why not just leave it at that? Slim 23:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Labelling an organization a 'terrorist' group has profound implications and is misleading, especially in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks by a group that is a 'terrorist' organization. Israel may consider Hamas as 'terrorists' but that doesn’t necessarily mean it's true. Israel has political gains by doing so in that it will closely relate Hamas to Al-Qaeda, thus creating an aura of false sympathy to Israel and it will cleverly create an 'evil' image for Hamas too. Yes, suicide bombings are a factor, but one just has to look at the number of civilian deaths from both sides: Palestinian civilian deaths are almost double the number of Israeli deaths; A coincidence? I think not.So if somebody is willing to name an organization--which is considered to be a resistance group of an unlawful invasion by many countries--a terrorist organization, just on the basis of attacks on civilians and civilian deaths, then by ALL means, Israel and the Zionist factors in it's government are also terrorists. If you are to disagree with fact and say Israel is not 'terrorist', then Hamas is also NOT a terrorist organization.

Did you read the article? It doesn't label Hamas a terrorist organization, it just points out who does, which includes far more than Israel (e.g. United States, European Union, Canada, etc.). Jayjg ^(talk) 07:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the dictionary:

Terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear intimidation.

see also [4] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism) and [5] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=82104&dict=CALD). Hamas definitely uses violence against civilians to attain it's goals and thus it is a terrorist organization. Labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization isn't political, it is merely stating facts.--Yunis 11:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of new to this, so work with me here as I'm still figuring things out (with the utmost caution). I agree that a distinction should be made between an organization Italic textbeing Italic text and Italic textcommitingItalic text acts of terror, although generally they go hand in hand. When an organization, like Hamas, is responsible for deliberately targeting civilians for political gain, it commits acts of terrorism. When deciding, then, whether or not an organization deserves the label "terrorist," I believe the criterium should be whether or not that organization has in place an overt (or covert) policy espousing the use of terrorist tactics. Clearly, if it is Hamas' policy to deliberately target civilians in order to achieve political aims, as is evident in numerous quotes taken from Hamas leaders in the territories and abroad, as well as Hamas' actions during the course of the Al Aqsa Intifada, then it is both appropriate and NPOV in the context of the article to describe Hamas as "terrorist."-- Mpardo 11:07, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Yunis and Mpardo above; if the tactics are to blow up civlians, then the organization is terrorist; therefore Hamas is terrorist, regardless of whether or not their goals are justifiable. Gzuckier 14:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israeli support/encouragement

I'm bothered by this statement:

"Many experts agree that while Israel never supported Hamas directly, it did encourage Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat."

Firstly, what is the difference between "support directly" and "encourage"? If there is one, it should be made explicit.

Secondly, there isn't actually a consensus of "experts" here, is there? It's not hard to find allegations that Israel supported Hamas in the 1980s.

—Ashley Y 11:18, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

OK, unless there's an objection, I'm going to change it to ": indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat". —Ashley Y 03:13, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Dubious position

The Israeli Defence Forces has a modern army with tanks and an air force with planes, while the Palestinians do not. Suicide bombers therefore view themselves as the low technology equivalent of smart bombs, guided missiles and other high-technology weapons employed by Israel against the Palestinians. -- This is a POV of HAMAS and their apologists, and WP should not take it without qualification. If someone insists on this text be included, we'd have to add that high-tech weapons are used to minimize civilian casualties while suicide bombers aim to maximize civilian casualties, and why the appearance of Qassam rockets didn't stop terrorism against Israeli civilians, only made it worse. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is correct to say that Hamas intentionally use suicide bombing to maximise the deaths of innocent civilians. However, high-tech weapons have nothing to do with reducing civilian casualties. High-tech weapons - like every organisation, both state and non-state, resorting to armed conflict in history - have only one aim; to maximise the extermination of one's enemy. Armed conflict has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. One need only look at how the ICC has been a failure due to many states not effectively supporting the court while others have opposed it. As military technology increases, so do civillian deaths. Today an estimated 90% of deaths in armed conflict are civilians; far greater than before. The use of high-tech weapons in Afghanistan are an example. While Afghan civilians were not understood as the enemy they suffered excessive casualties nonetheless.[6] (http://www.populist.com/02.2.jensen.html)

I think an argument can be made that high-tech advances in weaponry are intended to ensure that the targets are hit, and non-targets are not hit. This maximizes the effectiveness of the weapon, and may have the side-effect of minimizing collatoral damage. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think honestly that some reference to the disparity in military capability should be made, explaining the Hamas military tactics. And if the suicide bombers indeed "view themselves as the low technology equivalent of smart bombs, guided missiles" than I don't think it constitutes POV to put that forward, when clearly marked as their opinion. I don't know where this piece of text was originally located, but could someone please reinsert it? Also, if I were more confident in writing encyclopedic articles in English (not my language), I would perhaps try to reorganize the article as well. It seems not very structured or coherent in places (perhaps due to all the editing by competing authors). Also it does not very well explain the political ideology of Hamas. It does not mention or describe their "convenant" at all, which is a shame. Even for anti-Hamas people: know thy enemy... 80.126.3.128 02:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, there's a whole section describing their "covenant". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I misread that part, sorry. But it's a very interpretative part.

What do you mean "interpretive"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Assassinated by the Israelis"

That line, appearing at the very start of the article, seems unnecessary and a bit slanty. What if it were replaced by "later assassinated", "assassinated in 2004", or "1937-2004"? I don't know how those bracket-notes are handled in other articles about other assassinated people, but I just get the feeling that it's not worth specifying Israelis as assassins, given that the man in question is only being mentioned in passing.

I don't want to edit this page myself because it's so controversial, but I wonder if that change is worth making.

There are several "assassinated by Israelis" in the article, and I believe they should stay, for the sake of clarity. It's not a NPOV concern because the Israelis did indeed do that, and saying so makes it clear beyond doubt that the assassination was carried out by Israel, and not Hamas itself, other Palestenian movements or someone else - if you change it to "assasinated in 2004", for example, that is no longer clear. Solver

The Hamas logo

FYI, I am posting an RFC regarding the logo edit war and a similar one in Fatah#The Fatah logo. We could keep them unified at Talk:Fatah ot separate... My point is, encyclopedia's goal is to educate by exposing cold facts and the description of the logo works towards this goal. If you prefer to supress the description, please explain your reasoning. Also, it would be useful if Arabic language speakers could translate the Arabic text for the rest of us. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The logo is there for all readers to see for themselves. Inserting propagandist snipes insinuating at territorial ambitions is blatant POV pushing. The very state of Israel's flag is the star of David between two blue stripes representing Jewish rule between the Nile and the Euphrates, something which may be construed as a very damning picture of territorial ambition. Nevertheless, because of biblical and religious associations of Eretz Israel and the Promised Land, I wouldn't go in to the Israel article trying to insert innuendoes about the "true meaning" of the flag. Just because the Fatah and Hamas logos shows historic Palestine does not imply there's some sinister meaning to it all. Just leave the logs be and the readers can make what they will of them, without these little "hints." --AladdinSE 13:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, calm down. The problem is that you are either unfamiliar with Hamas, or that you are seriously misrepresenting it. They have publicly stated that their goal is to rule over all of the State of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. You have no right to falsify their own beliefs. RK

I am disturbed by your apparent acceptance of an attack on the Jewish people that has often been used to justify and incite anti-Semitism. You write that "The very state of Israel's flag is the star of David between two blue stripes representing Jewish rule between the Nile and the Euphrates, something which may be construed as a very damning picture of territorial ambition." That anti-Jewish myth has been debunked time and again. The flag of the State of Israel is simply showing a Star of David on a tallit, the traditional Jewish prayer shawl! In fact, the overwhelming, vast majority of the people who designed and used this flag (the early political Zionists), explicitly denied that they had any such goals. Aladdin, falling for such proven myths can only tend to reduce your credibility. See the article on the Flag of Israel for more information. RK 15:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I was perfectly calm, and didn't even use a single exclamation mark (unlike yourself). Where do you think the Jewish Prayer shawl's inspiration came from? From the notion of Eretz Israel and the Promised Land, of course. It has not been debunked nor is it an implicit anti-Semitic attack. Only the other day I was watching the BBC world service news on TV and they described the Israeli flag in this manner without any anti-Semitic or territorial overtones. What I am saying is, it doesn't matter. Historical and religious notions do not necessarily translate into bona-fide territorial ambitions. Yes, Hamas and other factions do not recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel, although they have indicated several times that they are prepared to accept it as a fact. So what? There are people sitting in the Knesset right now that actually advocate the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from Israel and the occupied territories and beyond. These "descriptions" of logos and emblems and the like are poorly disguised insinuations. Why can't we just allow the readers to make what they will of what they see in the graphic? --AladdinSE 15:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the notion that the Jewish prayer shawl stripes come from the idea of the Nile to the Euphrates? The BBC world service is rather notorious for its factual inaccuracies and rather anti-Israel view when it comes to the Middle East. In any event, it's simply an anti-Zionist myth; provide evidence that any of it is factual in any way. As for the caption, all pictures have captions describing their contents. And even if you wrongly think the implication is that Hamas wants to conquer Israel, that's hardly inaccurate, is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That "Hamas wants to conquer Israel" is of course explicitly stated as one of the ideological starting points in its charter: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, May Allah Pity his Soul). [7] (http://www.hamasonline.com/indexx.php?page=Hamas/hamas_covenant) --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 19:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly right, it wants an Islamic state in all of "historical Palestine" including the PA, and this is stated in the article and the covenant is linked. I agree to a caption since the reference to "entire state of Israel" has been altered. Nevertheless, since you are so interested in describing the facts, those territories happened to be Israeli occupied, not some harmless independent states. As for the prayer shawl, it is neither a proven fact nor a simple anti-Semitic myth. Due to it's highly politicized nature I would never countenance the use of this dispute to insinuate hints of territorial ambitions into the caption of the flag of Israel. That was my point. --AladdinSE 07:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly because it's one hell of a stretch to insinuate territorial ambitions into the Israeli flag. Whereas having a map of somebody else's country on your flag is an unusual characteristic; and pointing that unique feature out in a NPOV manner to readers who might not have noticed for themselves or might be familiar with the outlines of modern Israel, the West Bank, and historic Israel/Palestine does nto in itself constitute POVness. Or are there lots of countries whose flags feature somebody else's country on them that I have missed? Gzuckier 17:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The prayer shawl is not a "simple anti-Semitic myth"; rather it is something you made up yourself, not even the propagandists who claim the flag represents that claim the tallit does as well. You'd be more credible if you weren't making things up, and contributing to the spread of silly myths.[8] (http://www.meforum.org/article/215) Oh, and if Daniel Pipes isn't good enough for you, would you believe it if Israel Shahak, one the best known critics of Zionism, Judaism, and "Zionist expansionism", said it? "A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit)."[9] (http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm) Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And in cases where the prayer shawl has two black stripes rather than two blue ones, that must symbolize Jewish rule of the oil fields! Gzuckier 17:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course, black stripes are traditional amongst Ashkenazi Jews; I doubt you would have found a tallit with blue stripes before the 20th century. And, of course, white stripes are traditional amongst Sephardi Jews; no doubt those indicate Jewish rule of the Arctic to the Antarctic as well, thus indicating Jewish ambitions to control the whole world. Which, of course, they have already achieved, via the Elders of Zion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, JayJG, some Zionists are so selfish. I have smaller needs. "Oh, General, the world is a big place. Thank goodness, my needs are small...As it turns out, I have this affinity for beachfront property...Australia." (Superman II, Lex Luthor to General Zod)

Rule the whole world? A mere piker's ambition. "The ultimate goal of the Jews ... after conquering the globe ... is to extract from the hands of the Lord many stars and galaxies". -Ali Baqeri, 'researcher' of the Protocols, in Sobh (a radical Islamic monthly) in 1999. Gzuckier 19:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're quite finished with your jolly repartee, we might perhaps return to the subject at hand, the Hamas emblem/logo. You know full well that this whole affair started because someone started inserting references to "the entire state of Israel" in a deliberate and nakedly POV attempt to subvert a neutral caption into a political agenda. For the last time, I do not believe in the Nile to the Euphrates notion, and using it to subvert the Israeli Flag caption is an example of what not to do; it is just as silly as what is being attempted here. I think a caption that does not attempt to tell readers what they are seeing is the most neutral option, but like I have said before, I am perfectly willing to acquiesce to a "descriptive" caption as long as it's NPOV and all facts are mentioned. Somehow you insist on the bombs and the guns but if someone mentions the fact that the Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza, the whole world falls apart. There are territories that have not been annexed, their occupied status is a classification used by the United Nations and overwhelmingly in the world. Similarly, to distinguish Palestinian links (Israeli Arabs, refugees etc) to historic Palestine, it's important to say "...shows the map of what is now Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza." --AladdinSE 21:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but I think the jolly repartee was making more sense. Gzuckier 05:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your earlier claims regarding the flag, the BBC, etc., and edits to the Flag of Israel article indicate otherwise. As far as the logo description goes, I see pictures of guns and hand grenades; I don't see a picture of "occupation". The description should be accurate and factual, and not describe things which are not actually in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They indicate no such thing. The fact that the controversy is out there is just the way it is, and pretending that there is no controversy is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. What's actually in it includes the West bank and Gaza, which are occupied by Israel, you can't get anymore factual than that. --AladdinSE 21:44, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't just state there was a controversy, you supported it, and even made up claims supporting it. As for the logo, it includes Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip; that is simple fact. However, the legal status of those territories is a political argument. Describe the logo, not your politics. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it would be far more advantageous to certain positions to paint rival sides as anti-Semitic and conspiracy theorists, but this is simply not the case. Allowing both sides to present points in an encyclopedia is not supporting any one side. My edits will prove I maintained all Zionist objections, where other editors deleted and blatantly ridiculed the other side in a highly non-encyclopedic manner. The legal status of the territories will be determined by the outcome of peace negotiations, the Israeli military occupation is a fact, and describing it as such is factual and not politics. Hiding it is politics. --AladdinSE 22:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You claimed the myth was true, you made up some BBC source for it, and you even invented some argument that that's what the stripe on the tallit mean as well, and inserted it into an article; I'm still waiting for a source on that. And I haven't claimed you were anti-Semitic, I merely note that you swallowed some transparent Arab myth-making and then repeated it as fact. As for the logo, describing the occupation is appropriate where it is relevant, but trying to drop it into every article you can on the flimsiest of pretexts is politicking. There is no picture of "occupation" in the logo, there's just a picture of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I claimed no such thing, and I made up no source. I specifically said I heard it mentioned as a controversy on the news, you cannot cite something like that anyway, nor are you required to, that was a Talk discussion and not an article edit. I claimed nothing was true, that is patently false. Stating the obvious that some people do believe it though, is npov. I also maintained Zionist denials and claims of anti-Semitism, as well as all references to the opposing factions' account of how the design came about. I swallowed nothing, and personally agree that is is a red herring and entirely counterproductive to the peace process. I will not repeat myself on this matter. I have not "described the occupation" in the logo. I only stated it. Describing is enumerating attributes. Israel is a sovereign nation. You can't just follow that with naked "West Bank" and "Gaza" which are not sovereign, it's a simple statement of fact to mention that Israel occupies them. While this dispute is in progress I will limit to one revert daily, as far at the caption is concerned, instead of the allowed maximum, as per advice. --AladdinSE 22:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Look at your edit of Flag of Israel, which inserted a false claim about some sort of controversy regarding the origins of the stripes on the tallit. As for "West Bank" and "Gaza", whether or not they are occupied is a political and legal opinion, and one that is disputed at that. Is it now your contention that every single mention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in every single article on Wikipedia must also mention that they are "Occupied" as well? Should the articles themselves be renamed to reflect that? In any event, the logo doesn't demonstrate occupation, it merely shows a territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Double sigh. I will not repeat myself on that point; refer to my Talk above. The occupation is so overwhelmingly denounced around the world. You can try to make it out to be "in dispute" until you're blue in the face. The world has made itself clear on that point, --AladdinSE 07:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You have failed to answer rather simple questions; "Is it now your contention that every single mention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in every single article on Wikipedia must also mention that they are "Occupied" as well? Should the articles themselves be renamed to reflect that? " Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is because you failed, until just now, to ask a simple question without a whole lot of off topic digression. The answer is no. Only where the context requires it, such as the emblem of a militant insurgent group where Israel is mentioned a s a state and the territories are illogically not mentioned as Israeli-occupied.--AladdinSE 05:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's easy to solve; remove the reference to Israel as a State. It makes the description shorter too, which is a bonus. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No argument there, any shortening would be welcome. Very well, I concede the occupied label matter. I think it is more accurate and appropriate in this instance that the territories be labeled as occupied in the caption, but am willing to live with this formulation. --AladdinSE 21:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

More arms caption

Right now, the coat of arms caption says "a map of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip". This is misleading, as the boundaries between these three things are not demarcated. It's really not a map of three things.

Clearly what is shown is the outline of one single entity. I propose referring to that as "Palestine" or possibly "historic Palestine", as that is the most common single name for that particular region of land.

We should also ask ourselves: what is the intent of the drawing? What is it supposed to be? Clearly whoever designed it did not mean any "State of Israel", since I assume Hamas does not even recognise such an entity. The current description suggests that the artist intended to depict "the State of Israel" etc., which clearly isn't the case. They intended to represnt what they call "Palestine" regardless of how you or I may feel about what that word means. —Ashley Y 23:14, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Well, Palestine is a problem, since there is no clear understanding of the word, and it certainly isn't an existing entity either. Does Palestine mean just the West Bank and Gaza Strip? For many it does. Does it mean that plus Israel? That's what Hamas means when they say it. Does it mean that plus Jordan? That's what it meant when the British captured it. Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip is the only accurate way of describing that particular territory, which, in reality, represents Hamas' territorial ambitions, not Palestine. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about "the land they claim as Palestine"? —Ashley Y 00:04, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I'd vote for "historical Palestine" as it seems to me to be less POV, and I guess it's accurate. Gzuckier 05:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's not introduce more complexity by opening that can of worms. Palestine (region) at various times included (or not) Trans-Jordan, Gaza, parts of the Negev, Lebanon, Syria, etc. The map of Israel + GS + WB is a neutral description of the image on this coat of arms (BTW, thanks for finding the exact term!!), especially in the light of Hamas' stated goal to establish Islamist khalifat/jamahiriyya there. Of course "Hamas does not even recognise such an entity" as the State of Israel, but why should a serious encyclopedia adopt views of genocidal extremists? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it's not a map of Israel + GS + WB, except incidentally and imperfectly (since Gaza and the WB are not marked). It is specifically a map of the land they claim as Palestine. —Ashley Y 07:44, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

"The land they claim as Palestine" is an undefined region (like the Midwest), while "the map of modern SoI+GS+WB" is a more precise description of the image. They do not need to separate those areas (as you know, the permanent borders are still subject to negotiations) because they want it all. Another benefit of explicit wording, it lists what they intend to supersede, a very inmportant point IMO. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the land they claim as Palestine is really undefined (and I'm not sure that's true), then so is the map, and in that case the "SoI+GS+WB" description would actually be inaccurate. We should refer to what the artist intended to portray, and that's clearly the land they claim as Palestine. If that claim is as you say undefined, and it occasionally contains some odd sliver of land in the margin, then so does the map in the mind of the artist regardless of whether it's part of "SoI+GS+WB". —Ashley Y 08:18, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

It's a matter of authority. The authority on what an image is supposed to portray is the artist. If you ask the artist what that thing at the top is supposed to be, they'll say it's a map of Palestine. Now, of course their use of the word "Palestine" is controversial, so it should be appropriately qualified. But their intent is quite clear, and that's what we should mention as straightforwardly as possible.

I can't see any reasonable way of describing a symbolic drawing such as this except in terms of what the artist intended. —Ashley Y 08:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I have the utmost respect to the authority of an artist. As long as your proposed text reflects that Hamas claims the territory of modern Israel, WB and GS, I am on your side. I'm sure you know, there's been never been a country called "Palestine" and historically the region's borders were fluid. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This may be too long for a caption, but perhaps is a way to describe the emblem fully and neutrally: The Hamas emblem consists of the Dome of the Rock, two crossed swords, and two Palestinian flags embracing the Dome with the phrases, "There is no god but Allah", and "Mohammed is the messenger of Allah." At the top is a map encompassing the boundaries of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with "Palestine" written under the picture and a strip at the bottom stating "Islamic Resistance Movement-Hamas." --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 10:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

An alternative shorter version, though it doesn't describe everything: The Hamas emblem shows two crossed swords, the Dome of the Rock, and a map encompassing the boundaries of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with "Palestine" written under the picture. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 10:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it to "a map of the land they claim as Palestine (roughly, the present State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)". —Ashley Y 10:40, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I like your current version. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still like 'land they view as historic palestine' or some such, but not strongly enough to push for it, just strongly enough to mention it. Gzuckier 17:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm still playing Wiki catchup, but this seems like some good progress here. I am inclined to endorse: "The Hamas emblem shows two crossed swords, the Dome of the Rock, and a map of the land they claim as Palestine (roughly, the present State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)." caption, with reservations about why Israel is accorded its designation as a state, but the West Bank and Gaza are not accorded their designation as occupied by Israel. --AladdinSE 05:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Let's just have this discussion in one article, not two. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean? --AladdinSE 05:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Let's just discuss it here, not her and Talk:Fatah as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I was asked by Ashley Y, I think, at one point, how I thought a different wording (applied to both captions) sounded, and I answered accordingly. The dispute about both the Hamas and Fatah captions are very similar, and it's inevitable that references to both occur in the Talk. --AladdinSE 21:25, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to shorten "the present State of Israel" to "present Israel". I do think "State of" may make "Israel" less ambiguous since "Israel" is a name used in other contexts, while "Gaza Strip" and "West Bank" have no ambiguity about them. Do you feel it would be more balanced to just say, "roughly, present Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"? --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 06:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's the conclusion I came to above. Let's go for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I prefer it as it was: "present Israel" isn't very idiomatic. —Ashley Y 11:03, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

How about "Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip"? That's even shorter, and is idiomatic as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, like that best --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

As you all know by now, I think that in the context of this being the emblem of a militant insurgency group, the Palestinian territories ought to be stated as occupied. However if the consensus favors omitting this, I am willing to concede this point (admittedly with reluctance), as the distinction seems a little less vital with "State of Israel" being changed to "Israel." --AladdinSE 21:25, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a difference inasmuch as "West Bank" and "Gaza" are names for territories that would presumably continue to be used if Hamas got their way. "Israel", at least in the sense of the modern state, is by contrast the name of a state, not a territory. States are political declarations that refer to territory, they are not the territories themselves. One could speak of the land of Israel as a territory, but that would certainly be POV. But I can live with what we have now. —Ashley Y 01:09, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Hey I got the translation for the Arabic text in the emblem that someone asked about... it's the Islamic Shahadah, the profession of faith (first pillar of Islam) ... "There is no deity but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God." --AladdinSE 08:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Hamas"

Talk:Hamas

Other countries?

Hammas?

Questionable intro