Talk:Hamas/Archive 6

message: These is much missing from Hamas origins. I'll see if I can rewrite the following to get around copyright and make it Wiki compatable by finding links if no one objects or someone else can do it if they prefer. I'm not all that fussed as I only came here from link on another page and noticed how sparse that section was.
"According to current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel "aided Hamas directly as the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.
Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.
According to documents obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT) by UPI, Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as an Islamic
Association by the name Al-Mujamma Al Islami. Funds for the  movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel, according to U.S. intelligence officials. With the triumph of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, with the birth of Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon, Hamas began to gain strength in Gaza and then in the West Bank, relying on terror to resist the Israeli occupation. Israel was certainly still funding the group at this time.
Violent acts of terrorism became the central tenet, and Hamas, unlike the PLO, was unwilling to compromise in any way with Israel, refusing to acknowledge its very existence. Even then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the other groups, if they gained control, would refuse to have anything to do with the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official."
Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved. Wayne 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest having a seperate section called Origin of Hamas or Founding or Background etc and adding this in rather than trying to cram even more into the Lead Section. Having this section would also shrink the Lead slightly. Yas121 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck! However, concerning the funding of Hamas, you can just add this other source to the subsection "Funding of Hamas". It's no news!... Tazmaniacs 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Hamas 

message: A lot of people have complained that this article focuses on the negative side of Hamas, and claim that this therefore makes the article violate NPOV. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. By the same token, one might argue that the Ted Bundy page focuses too much on murdering and should devote equal time to his activities helping in Sunday School. The fact is, Hamas is globally known for its terrorist activities. They are the main aspect of the organisation as far as the international community is aware, and that is why it is the most documented aspect of this article.86.129.223.120 14:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the statement: "Neutral Point of View is NOT the same as Neutral per se", where "Neutral" means giving two opposing points of view equal weight. There are wiki policies about undue weight. If you go to the page on Global Warming or Evolution, then you see that the critics are mentioned, but only briefly. Unlike Evolution or Global Warming, there is no widespread consensus about the US or Israeli point of view. This article should give the facts about Hamas as can be found in the (preferably scientific, peer reviewed) literature, and not the opinion of (misinformed) people.  Count Iblis 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hamas is not *globally* known for its terrorist activities any more than the Republican party of the USA is *globally* known for bombing Iraqi civilians, kidnapping Italians/Saudis/Croatians/Indonesians/Malaysians/<insert favourite nation>, and abusing and killing thier prisoners. Thats just the perception in the middle east. Believe it or not, Palestinians, Eyptians, Brits, French, Italians, Lebanese, Russians, even Canadians don't watch a lot of Fox News and have a completely different perception of Hamas to Americans. Now, what is more relevant, the perception of people in Lebanon and Palestine to Hamas, or that of people in America?  Or the corollary, what is more relevant to an accurate description of the Republican Party: the view of the American population, or that of the Iranian? aussietiger 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View is NOT the same as Neutral per se 

message: OK, I thought something must have changed because Australia is noted in this article as having listed Hamas as a terrorist organistion. So I followed the link.
Australia does not list Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades is listed. Read the listing.  At no time is Hamas referred to as being listed. At ALL times "Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades" is used. This is done for a reason, they are differentiating between the two DELIBERATELY. It wasn't a mistake by DFAT and really they meant Hamas but got carried away on the keyboard.
"Ansar Al-Islam" is listed.  Can I add to the Islam article that Islam is a listed terrorist organisation?  And as "Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan" I better go and make my contribution to that country's article.
It is simply, and unequivocably WRONG to state that Hamas is listed. ONLY the military arm of Hamas known as "Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades" is listed. Being a memeber of Hamas IS NOT ILLEGAL IN AUSTRALIA as Hamas is NOT listed as a terrorist organisation.  It isn't good enough to just say 'oh near enough, we can include that cos it suits our agenda'.
It's not that hard to understand. The military armn is listed, Hamas itself is not.  Just like the IRA an Sinn Fein, one is part of the other, but they arent the same thing.... Just like Texas and America. Do you understand it yet?  I'm taking Australia out of the list. At least it wont be wrong for a short time although I already realise that some simpleton who just wants to see the world in nice big chunky black and white regardless of the facts will change it back, or maybe just redirect the whole article to Bad.
I'll leave the other nations listed for thier nationals to verify.  If you want to put back that Australia, Listing of Terrorist Organisations, Australian Government Attorney-General's Department, 27 January 2006. Accessed July 31, 2006.  lists 
Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, then you should. But if you put back that Australia lists Hamas then you are wrong, regardless of how firmly you believe otherwise. aussietiger 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct! We may as well say that all Americans support the fascist organisation Move America Forward --Asucena 19:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist organisation (how can we take you serious if you can't spell?) listings are WRONG 

message: Ascuneas, please discuss your changes here first. Forgetting about various points-of-view, the changes made were unsupported by reliable sources and just enhance the "conflict-of-interest"-ness (if you'll pardon the neology) of the edits. Thanks. -- Avi 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoI 

message: Here's a good Oxford-style debate which gives good, well-supported arguments for and against Hamas. The entire transcript is available on their web site. It was also broadcast on NPR. So it would all be a reliable source. These are my notes. According to these speakers, Hamas decided to stop killing innocents, and stop suicide bombings. They had a ceasefire, until the killing of the Ghalia family. 
Wednesday, November  29, 2006
A democratically-elected Hamas is still a terrorist organization
Intelligence Squared Debate, 29 Nov 2006, Resolved: A democratically-elected Hamas is still a terrorist organization. 
Moderator: Judy Woodruff. 
For: Daniel Ayalon, Israel embassador to the U.S. Steven A. Cook, Council on Foreign Relations. John O'Sullivan, Hudson Institute. 
Against: Stanley L. Cohen, Mahmoud Mohamedou, Harvard program on conflict research. 
Mark Perry, journalist. Israel also engages in terrorism. Hamas has agreed to a peace agreement, but Israel makes unilateral demands. 
Cook: Only after Hamas renounces violence and lays down its arms can it be a legitimate participant in the political arena. "Israel has killed Palestinian civilians, though unlike Hamas not intentionally." 
O'Sullivan: "A terrorist is a man who murders indiscriminately, distinguishing neither between civilian and innocent and guilty nor soldier and civilian." A terrorist group has "run itself out of democratic politics and we should refuse, refuse to deal with it." Though sometimes we make compromises for purpose of reconciliation. 
Mohammedou: Hamas observed a ceasefire for 15 months until the Israelis killed 7 members of the Ghalia family. 
Perry: After long discussions with Hamas about the killing of innocents, they stopped. There hasn't been a Hamas-led suicide bombing since August 2004. Kahled Messhaal said that he will have talks if Israel recognizes their legitimate grievances. 
Perry and Cohen argue that the U.S. supports non-democratic countries like Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood would win an election, because Egypt supports us politically, but not democratically elected governments like Hamas that don't support us. Nbauman 07:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford-style debate on Hamas 

message: For detailed discussion see the archived history for this talk page, and since nothing has changed since then all arguments still hold equal weight - Thanks
I’m only going to point to the lead section and not even bother talking about the rest of the article…
**1) This is “A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC”  Not many (if any) edit here without some kind of bias or prejeduice.
**2) The lead states “Hamas is known outside the Palestinian territories for its suicide bombings” REALLY? Is this what Hamas is known for by the entire Arab population?? By the entire Muslim world? By millions in Malaysia who regularly hold pro-palestinian ralies demanding freedom for the Palestinians from the Israeli occupation?  
**3) The lead meticulously states every country that list Hamas as a terrorist organization…EU and UK are listed separately! even though UK is part of the EU….why are countless attempts to point out that Russia, China, the quartet and MANY other countries don’t see them as such... REVERTED!?!
**4) The lead talks about an old Human Rights Watch report from 2002 but any attempt to mention that up to 50,000 people rallied in support of Hamas in Gaza City in December 2002"CBS NEWS" March Marks 2nd Intifata Anniversary  is reverted because it is old and irrelevant!?!
**5) Why on earth is the lead section on this article longer then almost any other article in Wikipedia?
**6) Hamas were democratically elected…where on earth are the views of their supporters in this article?? 
**7) Read the BBC page on Hamas  ….enough said.
Yas121 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't hold an article hostage forever, simply because you haven't been able to successfully POV it. Please try again, with meaningful, new alleged violations of NPOV, not non-arguments, or old arguments that have already been refuted. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for taking the time to go through the list...but I think you missed the actual point being made...these points/views are not violation of NPOV per se BUT the exclusion of any other views/points equals to violation of NPOV. Anyway, are you claiming that "The neutrality of this article is NOT disputed?"...as all that NPOV tag does is point out to people visiting this page that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" nothing more. If it wasn't disputed do you really think there would 100s of constant discussions of content, Edits, Rev, Edits and Rev.... in this article? Yas121 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which non-original search "other views/points" have been kept out of the article? The NPOV tag indicates that there is some on-going unresolved NPOV issue regarding specific content, not a box meant to deface an article because an editor can't get his way trying to POV an article. You have yet to name that specific issue. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, does this article have unresolved NPOV issues thus deserving the NPOV tag?...I think your numerous edits today and 3 Rev speak for themselves in answering that Q. Yas121 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, obviously not, since you haven't been able to articulate any new ones. As for the 3 revs on that day, they were of a editor who insisted that an NPOV tag should stay there because he didn't think the proper process for removing it had been followed, not because he had any specific issues. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Item 2 about suicide bombings is a partial quote; the full sentence mentions that Hamas has done terrorist acts other than suicide bombings (although the article lists few of the other).  The footnote for the suicide bombing phrase  shows the phrasing is based on the cited source.  (SEWilco 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey why is the NPOV tag on there!?! I’ll give you a hint… 

message: Thanks faysal for removing this:  "Now the Muslim militant group appears to be spoiling for a fight, especially in the absence of any progress toward the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit."  including it  was by mistake. Zeq 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries mate. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My mistake 

message: they blame america and use Micky Mouse: see the video at:   Zeq 19:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  for those who can appriciate the irony 

message: I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised when I casually stroll by the Hamas article and find it to be an impeccably sourced but seething screed against Hamas that two of the primary influences are Jayjg and Humus Sapiens. Still flying the Star of David on your homepage, Humus? Still making arbitrary decisions as to who qualifies as an “expert” and thus what evidence you will allow onto “your” wikipedia article, Jay?
While I would expect any article on Hamas to mention things like suicide bombs it serves no one and nothing but the agenda of Revisionist Zionists to have the Hamas article start off with four thousand words that’s a laundry list of every time every Hamas leader has shaken his rhetorical fist at Israel coupled with a summary of their covenant that is almost entirely quotes regarding Hamas’s dire plans for Israel. 
Please, don’t take my word for it: read another source on Hamas. Shit, read another Western pro-Israeli source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968. 
Here are some specific suggestions:
1. Header: Yes, yes, yes. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the West. What does the Arab League think of them? At least as relevant and important, right?
2. Beliefs Header and Following Sections: This section actually makes me laugh. Every single sentence is nothing but a description of how much Hamas hates Israel. Do people in Hamas have an opinion of anything besides Israel, I wonder? Three thousand words later, there are three paragraphs regarding Hamas’s social beliefs.
3. Accusations and Denials of Anti-Semitism: Hamas might be completely anti-Semitic, but no reader will take wikipedia’s word for it. There is virtually no sourcing anywhere here regarding the anti-Semitic quotes from Hamas people and the Covenant. Hamas throws around aspersions and bizarre Jewish conspiracy theories rampantly in their charter: it shouldn’t be hard to source.
4. Overall Covenant Observations: anyone else note that the sections of the Covenant that speak about international efforts to advance the peace process and western interventions in the Middle East (Articles 7, 13, 15, 22, 32) are the longest and most repetitive in the Covenant? There is clearly a deep-seated bitterness regarding Israel and the West and a belief that they are essentially the same.
5. What commonalities does Hamas have with other militant or fundamentalist Islamic organizations? 
6. Note the misogyny in Hamas’s Covenant: “The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men…” Well! There you go! Women are important because they make men!
I might write an article on Israel, with the header composed of nothing but a laundry list of UN Security Council resolutions they’ve violated followed by excoriations at the hands of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International with a little paragraph at the end mentioning the fact they’re a democracy with this and that industry and that header would be about as shitty as the current one is. 
Yas 121, Asucena, Da’oud Nkrumah, and Wayne are right. The header and the first part of this article are an unrelenting screed. I couldn’t find another header on any political party or militant organization on wikipedia that was as furiously negative, and that includes the articles on Irgun, the Contras, and the Shining Path! Not even the Khmer Rouge article approximated this level of vitriol. MarkB2 06:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Reiteration of Previous Points 

message: The Hamas and Irgun, two similar organisations with regards to civilian casualties, with Irgun being a much worse perpetrator on a year-to-year basis, with both movements deemed "liberation movements" by their supporters and "terrorists" by detractors. See:
*List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s
Despite the above, this was tucked away in the last paragraph of that article, while Hamas' primary activities of charity and social care are drowned out by all the screaming terrorist branding, especially in the lead. This article should be delicately balanced in the direction of the article. Ulritz 14:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparity between Hamas and [[Irgun]] articles 

message: Can this edit  be verified independently?  An initial search only turns up this single person's editorial, or others that reprint it. Tarc 19:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas in "biblical Hebrew"? 

message: I notice the claim in the article that "In Biblical Hebrew, Hamas literally means 'violence'." I have no idea whether it is true, but I have serious doubt over whether it is relevant. Unless someone can show a reasonably neutral citation for this being believed to be a deliberate usage, or unless we can include some citable discussion of whether it was deliberate, I think this should not be in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Hebrew 

message: :Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada,[8][9] the European Union,[10] Israel,[11] Japan,[12] and the United States,[13] and is banned in Jordan,[14] Australia,[15] and the United Kingdom[16] both list the militant wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization.
The statment above is an incorrectly written English sentence.  It could be modified to proper form by replacing the comma after the word "Jordan" with a period, and beginning a second sentence with "Australia" and removing the comma immediately after this word.  However, the sourcing is too intricate for me to even read the code on the "editing" page, and I am unsure if the sources cited indicate the changed I propose (or if they perhaps refer to something else, and the modification into proper English sentences should be performed some other way).  Please fix if you are able to. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-controversial grammar-based copy edit 

message: I think the second paragraph can be siphoned off into other sections of the article, such as the beliefs and history section. And I propose making a new section called "International perception of Hamas", or something similar, and then placing the fourth paragraph there. With its own section, "international perception" could be elaborated on and maybe that would ease some resentment that some editors have about that paragraph being in the intro. Any thoughts? Organ123 23:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not! The facts that this organisation is listed my many democaratic nations (i count 32 infact) as a terrorist organisation are very notable for the lead, as are its constant and repeated human rights violations and its war crimes. Hypnosadist 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it equally notable then to note that approx. 170 nations do not list them as terrorists? Tarc 12:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How many of those 170 countries have lost nationals to Hamas attacks? Hypnosadist 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly -- it's because of these differing opinions that I'm proposing to have a section devoted to it. The lead section can have a sentence stating that various countries think Hamas is a terrorist organization, and various others don't. Then it can be elaborated on in the new section. Organ123 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for shrinking lead section in accordance with WP guidelines 

message: This article is enormous and not fantastic. Here are some ideas for shrinking and improving it, which I will be happy to implement if there is support.
1) Create a new page called History of Hamas. Turn turn the current history section into more of a summary and move the bulk of the information to the new page. (For reference see History of the United States Democratic Party and the "History" section of the main page.
2) Shrink "Covenant of Hamas" section. It is not necessary to have so many block quotes.  The covenant itself is not that long. Readers can be directed to the document itself if they want to read lengthy excerpts of it.
3) Shrink antisemitism section. For those for whom this section is particularly important, I'll note that conciseness will strengthen the section rather than weaken it. It doesn't take so many quotes to argue that Hamas is antisemitic. As a suggestion: a) A one/two sentence intro. b) Write a couple of the strongest arguments/quotes saying that Hamas is antisemitic. c) Briefly describe a couple of the strongest arguments/quotes saying that Hamas is not antisemitic. d) Briefly present the argument that Hamas is primarily anti-Zionist but associates all Jews with Zionism. I think this could be done in half the space and make the section more effective for all, regardless of one's POV.
4) Shrink lead section as described above. I think the second paragraph can be siphoned off into other sections of the article, such as the beliefs and history section. And I propose making a new section called "International perception of Hamas", or something similar, and then placing the fourth paragraph there. With its own section, "international perception" could be elaborated on and maybe that would ease some resentment that some editors have about that paragraph being in the intro.
I don't think these changes would make this a good article, but I think they would make it a better article. Any thoughts?
Organ123 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Briefly present the argument that Hamas is primarily anti-Zionist but associates all Jews with Zionism" therefore they are anti-semitic!!! What happened to the teaching of logic? Hypnosadist 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my argument; it's from one of the sources in the article. Please, if editors have constructive comments or criticisms with my proposal, say them in a polite and calm fashion per Wikipedia policies. Otherwise, please do not say them. Organ123 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So in terms of the above proposal, is there anything you would specifically object to? I am not talking so much about fixing POV issues as I am about shrinking the article --  which it sounds like you agree with -- by, in part, going after overlong sections. Organ123 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good start to me. However you forgot to mention cutting down on the same quotes/facts being written in full multiple times. Very annoying habit and detracts from the flow. Wayne 05:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for shrinking & improving article. 

message: I tried to turn the current section into something much shorter without losing a sense of the general flow of events or changing language in a way that would be controversial. I tried to include the events that seemed to be most directly related to Hamas itself, and tried to cut out pieces of analysis or individual events that didn't seem suitable for a brief synopsis of a 20-year time frame. Organ123 23:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created [[History of Hamas]] page 

message: The last sentence of the lead paragraph seems very awkward. I have no previous knowledge of Hamas (hence, the reason I was reading the article), so I don't want to stipulate what is trying to be said there. Could some one please revise the wording. Thanks. Lau_ash 29:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Check 

message: http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_hamas7_02-07-07_9C47RR6.7a485a.html
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=463541
http://www.apfw.org/indexenglish.asp?fname=news%5Cenglish%5C2007%5C01%5C13205.htm
http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/pchr-condemns-attacks-on-journalists-and-media-institutions-20070620.html
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=46265
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2007/06/appeal_from_maan_editor.html
and use of the media:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6221694.stm
we will hear more about it the next few days. Zeq 06:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section needed : limitations on freedom of the press 

message: It certainly needs a sections on the Hamas in Goverment, the National Unity government and on the Hamas Fatah conflict and its crushing victory over Fatah forces in Gaza. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a couple of good sources for background on the failed Fatah coup and some UN documents have sufaced to back them up so I will see what can be done with them once I get some reliable sources for the elections etc as well. Wayne 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs updating 

message: I've attempted to summarize the fourth paragraph of the intro in different ways, but it keeps getting reverted for vague, false, or meaningless reasons. I would appreciate if editors and administrators would try to edit rather than revert reflexively, as per WP guidelines and policies. As it stands now, the fourth paragraph is duplicated in its entirety later in the article. So if we are to adhere to WP:Lead Section as well as style guidelines, we should try to summarize in the intro portion rather than duplicate. For example, there is no need to list every country that thinks Hamas is a terrorist organization in the article's intro, especially if it is done in exactly the same language later in the article. Organ123 04:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is no need to write it out word for word in two parts of the article. Intros are for summaries. The fourth paragraph has a neutrality problem given its level of detail, but it also has a WP:lead section problem given that it does not summarize, but restates word for word, text already in the article. Organ123 13:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of fourth paragraph of intro 

message: A recent change to the intro (5th paragraph) states that Abbas has issued a decree outlawing the Hamas executive and militia. I thought the legality of what has been happening recently was ambiguous. If so, should'nt the article reflect this ambiguity until it is cleared up?Delad 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have guessed the paragraph is blatant POV."On June 18, 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) issued a decree outlawing the Hamas militia and executive force, and two days later called the group "murderous terrorists," after Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip.”I point out the following from an Israeli Newspaper (my bold):"It is not very pleasant to admit it, but in the battle for control of the Gaza Strip, Hamas was in the right. Hamas is cruel, disgusting and filled with hatred for Israel, but it was victorious in democratic elections. Hamas did not 'seize control' of Gaza. The US, Europe and Israel encouraged Fatah to cling to power last year despite losing its mandate. Hamas took the action needed to enforce its authority, disarming and destroying a militia that refused to bow to its authority."Abbas caused the conflict by refusing to give up control of the security forces and then had Mohammed Dahlan (a terrorist every bit as bad as any in Hamas) attempt a coup against the elected Parliament. The Hamas account of the conflict is supported by the account from the UN envoy to the Middle East. This version should be in the article not the rubbish there now. It should not be in the lead either but a section on the elections/aftermath. Wayne 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: The second sentence of the intro says Hamas was elected "as the government of the Palestinian people".  The reference for that statement, a BBC article, only says that Hamas won 76 of 132 parliament seats.  Maybe Im missing the point somewhere but it seems like it should be re-written to reflect the actual outcome of the election.  As it stands, you dont get the impression that Hamas was successful in parliamentary elections, rather it reads like Hamas was elected to single-handedly serve as the Palestinian government.  Maybe something like "In the Jan. 2006 elections Hamas was successful in winning over half of the Palestinian parliament seats."  70.127.188.205 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... perhaps such additional information should be included, but essentially the upshot is the same. If a party wins more than half of the seats in a parliamentary democracy system, it has effectively been elected as government and has the right to choose a prime minister and all other key ministerial positions from among its ranks -- 128.232.240.178 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elected as government ?