Talk:Hamas/Archive 5

message: Hamas was democratically elected, and Israel and the EU / US then punished the Palestinians for their choice with harsh economic sanctions, including the withholding of legal Palestinian tax incomes from Hamas. This whole article reads like a MEMRI press release. Total, complete POV garbage.
Why not state that it can be seen both ways?  that Hamas can be seen as a terrorist organization (through suicide bombings) and its assistance of Palestinian peoples?
For all those who claim that should be illustrated as  "known for their assistance of Palestinian people " read this example of Hamas's assistance program for Palestinian kids: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/31/HAMAS.TMP
Just a small Pick: 
one beach camp, attended by approximately 100 kids, an instructor wore a heavy flannel shirt under which a webbed belt could be seen strapped to his stomach. Asked by a reporter what it was, he answered, with a broad smile, "Boom!"
The instructor led a group of young teenagers through marching drills on the sand -- facing movements, close quarter drill. With a smile at the reporter, he put a megaphone to his lips.
"What are you?" he called.
"Monsters!" the kids replied.
"What are you?!"
"MONSTERS!"
As the instructor, Sa'eb Dormush, stepped aside for an interview, a youth in the group shouted out "moqawama!" -- resistance.
"That is the first word they learn when they are born," Dormush said with a laugh. "This is the next generation."
Across camp, a group of younger children -- most between 10 and 12 -- sat in a circle in the sand singing one of the "intifada songs" they learn at camp. One boy sang verses in a rolling soprano as the others joined in on the one-word chorus.
"We don't want to sleep.
HA-A-MAS!
We want revenge.
HA-A-MAS!
Raise it up.
HA-A-MAS!
Rifle fire.
HA-A-MAS!
If it will take a thousand martyrs.
HA-A-MAS!
Kill Zionists.
HA-A-MAS!
Wherever they are.
HA-A-MAS!
In the name of God.
HA-A-MAS!"
This is an extemely biased article. No where in the article are there any references to the Hamas view point. Where are the pictures of Israeli troops holding M16's on two year old children? Why isn't there mention of the political prisoners held in Israeli jails? Why isn't there mention of the  UN resolutions demanding Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza? A balanced article should certainly discuss the claims of Hamas as well. Da'oud Nkrumah 07:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is complete POV nonsense.

message: Tazmaniacs, the consensus was that we wouldn't be listing all dozens of countries who don't list Hamas as a terrorist organization, but rather would simply be listing the small number that do. Please respect that. Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which consensus? Numerous editors disagree with your opinion, Jayjg, please also respect that. Again, the point is not to list "dozen of countries", but you must admit that being part of the Quartet on the Middle East, Russia is an important player on that. Why doesn't it list Hamas as a terrorist group? It has no such problems when dealing with Chechnya... Shouldn't it list it? Would that be more efficient, from the current Israeli government's point of view, than the current state? Or would it backfire, and, with this blocade that doesn't call itself by its name, only favorize religious radicalization in the Palestinian territories? Who knows? But whatever your POV — doesn't matter if you feel Russia is right, or should to the contrary list it as a terrorist org — you must admit that if they did list it, the situation would not be the same. Russia is not Zimbabwe. For the sake of..., this is a fact, not an opinion or a value judgment! Tazmaniacs 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tazmaniacs, the truth is that Russia does not list Hamas as a terrorist organization purely in protest of other countries not listing the chechen rebels as a terrorist organization.  cacophony ◄► 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are all sorts of reasons why Russia might not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, most having to do with issues entirely unrelated to Hamas. In any event, it's not up to us to speculate, or to imply that their failure to do so is significant. As I recall, there were two or three editors who wanted to include Russia, most new, and with few edits, and 5 or 6 longstanding editors who disagreed with its inclusion. You haven't come up with any new reasons for including it. Please get consensus before inserting it. Jayjg (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I haven't seen any guideline stating that "longstanding editors" tell the truth more often than editors with "few edits". Second, I've personally noticed a fair amount of person who agree in including Russia. Third, we are not speculating nor is it Original Research to state that Hamas is not on Russia's list. And a five-years-old would understand that it would change a bit the situation for Hamas. Please get consensus before excluding it. Tazmaniacs 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't about "telling the truth", but about understanding policy. Unsurprisingly, new editors who've only edited 4 or 5 articles, often don't understand it well.  The "fair amount of person" supporting the Russia inclusion turned out to be a small number of mostly new editors.  As for Original Research, the issue is not whether Russia actually includes Hamas on its terrorist list, but rather whether or not this is significant. The constant inclusion of the statement that "however, Russia does not state it is terrorist" is merely an attempt to "introduce an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" which is something WP:NOR forbids.  Tazmaniacs, we know Russia does not list Hamas as a terrorist organization, the lead is already clear on that - so why do you feel the need to highlight Russia specifically, among hundreds of other countries? It is because you feel it is significant in some way - you are trying to make an argument here. Please respect policy and get consensus before re-introducing this material. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Implying that Russia's abstention is relevant is OR, even if true. It may only be mentioned in context, as opinion by relevant sources. --tickle me 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And implying that the US are relevant is not OR? Tazmaniacs 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We list the small number of countries that actually identify Hamas as terrorist; all others, of course, do not. Please answer the questions. Jayjg (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's twisting words: Both Russia and the US are relevant, nobody denies that. What the US wants, or doesn't want, follows from the sources cited and thus has not to be guessed at. I'm talking of Russia's abstention. That of the billion things Russia does not do, or could do, this one thing is relevant, has to be sourced - and certainly not to a wikipedian's assertion. --tickle me 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia again? 

message: I suggest we end these silly Rev and Edit wars with each day a new reason, and actually discuss on a proper, mature and unbias lead section. I'd be happy if we manage to get a section that is only 70/30 in favour of Israel! Anyway here is what I have...Yes it does begin by pointing out who Hamas are then pointing out ALL countries who list them as a terrorist organisation and no mention of other countries who don't share that view. It goes on to describe the organisation, their military and politcal wings. Only mentioning their supporters in the last sentence and of course ref are provided for all claims... Pleaes I challange all of you to point out the POV in this and if you can't then just let Wikipedia be what it was meant to be a free encyclopedia OPEN FOR ALL to contribute to regardless of race and religion!
" Hamas (; acronym: , or Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement") is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization that currently forms the democratically elected government of the Palestinian National Authority."BBC NEWS" Hamas sweeps to election victory  It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,Listing of Terrorist Organisations, Australian Government Attorney-General's Department, 27 January 2006. Accessed July 31, 2006. Canada,Keeping Canadians Safe, Public Security and Emergency Preparedness Canada, National Security, Listed entities. Accessed July 31, 2006. "Hamas is listed as a terrorist group in the Criminal Code of Canada." Tibbetts, Janice. Canada shuts out Hamas ,The Montreal Gazette, March 30, 2006. the United Kingdom,"UK Home Office"  the European Union,"Council Decision" Council of the European Union, December 21, 2005 Israel, and the United States,"Country reports on terrorism", U.S. State Dept., April 27, 2005. and is banned in Jordan.Karmi, Omar. "What does the Hamas victory mean for nearby Jordan?", The Daily Star, February 18, 2006
Hamas has both a political and a military wing. The military wing of Hamas, formed in 1992, is known as the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades to commemorate Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the father of modern Arab resistance, killed by the British in 1935. Armed Hamas units also sometimes refer to themselves as "Students of Ayyash", "Students of the Engineer", or "Yahya Ayyash Units",Kushner, Harvey W. (2002). Encyclopedia of Terrorism, p.160 Sage Publications,  to commemorate Yahya Ayyash, an early Hamas bomb-maker assassinated by Israel in 1996.
Since the death of the former Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat Hamas' political wing has entered and won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya and Nablus .In January 2006 Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, with the ruling Fatah party trailing on 43.
Hamas has an unknown number of active official members but tens of thousands of supporters and sympathisers who see it as a legitimate resistance movement fighting the Israeli occupation. Up to 50,000 people rallied in Gaza City in December 2002 to mark Hamas' 15th anniversary."CBS NEWS" March Marks 2nd Intifata Anniversary "
:I agree with your efforts. We should find an intro everyone could stand for. IMO, it should include Russia which is a member of the Quartet on the Middle East. However, sentence "to commemorate Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the father of modern Arab resistance, killed by the British in 1935. Armed Hamas units also sometimes refer to themselves as "Students of Ayyash", "Students of the Engineer", or "Yahya Ayyash Units"" is probably not needed in an intro to Hamas. Concerning the last sentence, I think actually it would be nice inserting Hamas into the Palestinian context (relations with Fatah & others). Tazmaniacs 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not accept your claim that Wikipedia discriminates based on "race or religion", and will not respond to any sections or suggestions premised on that claim. Jayjg (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But would you consider once trying to find an intro which we might agree upon? I'd like to think so. Tazmaniacs 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be commenting in this section. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good starting point. I think the dates of the formation of the differnet wings not just the military wing should be added to the intro to give the evolution of this organisation and shape to the following article. And hamas's relations with Fatah and other groups should be mentioned. And the notable fact Russia has not made it a proscibed terrorist organisation. It is not OR to place this fact in the article, its only OR to say why they did not do that(ie hamas hasn't killed any russians that i know of), it is very USA centered to think such a powerful and important world power as russia is not notable. Given the arguments raised to stop russia being placed in this article, Jordan should not be in the introduction unless a notable source says so. Its OR under your rules to have it there to say look a muslim/middle eastern country banned them as well.Hypnosadist 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, Please don't twist my words, I said wikipedia was meant to be a free encyclopedia OPEN FOR ALL to contribute to regardless of race and religion and that's how we should have it meaning don't change that. Yas121 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was only one reason for bringing up "race and religion". I will not comment on content in this section. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==A much less bias Lead section is desperately needed== 

message: Jayg please do not move contents of this talk page. Comments above were written above, don't change the section. If you add a comment, do it wherever you want, don't touch to my comment. And don't calll me a vandal because I oppose your moving my comments around. Thanks very much. Tazmaniacs 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayj, your first edit was moving MY comments. I reversed this move. What rights have you got on where I write my comments? And then you call me vandal and threaten me on my talk page? Your behaviour is sickening. Tazmaniacs 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving comments 

message: RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES PUT VIRTUAL ORGANIZATIONS ON TERROR LIST BUT IGNORE HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2371354
Putin: Hamas not a terror organization
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3213707,00.html
:Thank you anon. We don't so much need source however as trying to understand why some editors refuse to include Russia in the intro. Tazmaniacs 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things can only be explained to you so many times. By the way, the source is quite fascinating; it states "The Russian authorities do not recognize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations not only because they believe they pose no threat to Russia, but also because the Kremlin is very angry at Western countries that do not recognize the Chechen rebels as terrorists... The Kremlin’s decision to omit Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi insurgency from the list of terrorist organizations sends a clear message that terrorist threats to the West will be recognized only if Western officials recognize the Chechen insurgents as terrorists." Is that what you were suggesting for the intro? Something like "Russia has not designated Hamas as a terrorist organization because Hamas does not pose a threat to Russia, and in retaliation because Western countries won't designate Chechen rebels as terrorist"? Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you heated yourself Jayjg all alone. Keep cool, it's only Wikipedia! Obviously Russia doesn't list Hamas for political reasons, did you think the US or the EU only listed them because "they know good from bad"? Why do you think they listed the People's Mujahedin of Iran? And why do you think that they're going to remove them? Of course listing an organization as terrorist is a political decisions with afterthoughts, that's precisely why we should state that Russia didn't. What's its afterthougths? And what are the US and EU's afterthoughts? Tazmaniacs 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Zionist [Personal attack removed] Jayjg -- if you would get your head out of your ass for a minute you would realize that, absent the editorializing, the July 29 WP:V info is that Russia has determined Hamas is not a terrotist org, and Putin has said as much.  You don't give reasons for the US declaration, so why list them for Russia in the lead?  Stop trgying to WP:OWN the article, and let another POV in, other than your own (pro-Israel) one. -- 69.29.202.123 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you can't stand actual citations, so you "protect".  You self-serving POV cowards. -- 69.29.202.123 06:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, I found this article under ongoing anon attack, so I have sprotected the article and blocked one especially disruptive anon. If you feel this is wrong, let me know or feel free to report me. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eurasia Daily Monitor 

message: It the Human Right Watch report from 2002 is deemed important enough to be in the intro, I'm certainly not going to argue against that. But simple NPOV would require not to cherry-pick from this report, and HRW, just as Amnesty International, are always very careful not to seem to favorize one side on the other. That's because their business is human rights and medicine, not politics and wars (although how far both are distant is everyone's guess). Thus, I restaured the version on which we had agreed for a long time: "In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members. The same report also quoted Reuven Paz, former head of research for the Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence agency), who described Hamas as "an authentic product of Palestinian society under Israeli rule, more so than the PA." (Palestinian Authority)." Tazmaniacs 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsurprisingly, this has also been discussed before, yet Tazmaniacs again pretends that the previous discussion never happened: Talk:Hamas/Archive_4#Paz_quote Reuven Paz's statement is not endorsed as factual by the HRW report, and Tazmaniacs in any event would not in any event consider former Shin Bet people to be reliable sources when it came to Hamas.  The conclusion of the report is significant enough for the lead, but cherry-picking one quote from a Shin Bet person that one happens to like, is not. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since everyone is so adamantly determined to follow facts, can someone think of a good place in the intro to add the following I think it would at least give something positive to the critics of this article...
"Approximately 90 percent of its (Hamas) work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz.
--Yas121 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the source that says it's not only a terrorist group? Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HRW report 

message: Dear all, since there seems to be quite a lot of disagreement about the introduction in particular (we havn't even begun to address the rest of the article!) I thought we could put our suggestions here first rather than taking the cowboy approach and just adding things. 
I would like to add a little more detail about Hamas' activities other than suicide bombings. There are lots but the intro seems to ONLY really focus on that....how about the following (Of course source provided)
Hamas has further gained popularity by establishing extensive social services network, funding schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, and sports leagues. 
OR
Hamas, which devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network and then the above...
What do you think?
--Yas121 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if you want to avoid the cowboy approach, you'll stop inserting and deleting stuff without consensus. Show good faith first, then we'll talk. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to avoid conspiracy theory views in the article - the conflict itself was triggered by the Hamas kidnapping, regardless of whether or not Israel also planned to capture various Hamas ministers. Jayjg (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the original intro much better. You (Yas121) seem to be a constant thorn in this article and I'm frankly suprised that you haven't been banned. You've not only vandalled the article, but you continue to persue your fairyland POV into what is a highly sourced terrorist organization. In general, your intro sucks.--Skwurlled 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skwurlled, are you new? not seen you on this article before. Anyway, I have vandalled you say...Hmm well why don't you look at what the article was like before I started editing it and then look at it now. So which one reads a little like an Encyclopedia article and which is like an Right-wing Israeli rant!?!? As for Hamas I may not like them much BUT this is an Encyclopedia! we have to have at least a little unbias in articles and where exactly did you get your statment that Hamas were ONLY just a "highly sourced terrorist organization"!! according to Israeli scholar Reuven Paz "Approximately 90 percent of its (Hamas) work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities,". Looks to me you've got your own issues with "POV" --Yas121 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTRODUCTION SUGGESTIONS 

message: Yas121, considering the fact that the article already states this in the lead section, why do you feel that you need to keep inserting it twice? Also, considering the fact that the sources listed do not state it is "in response" etc., how do you feel your original research is justified? Additionally, why do you claim that there is an agreement to insert this into the article on the Talk: page, when the Talk: page contains no such agreement? And finally, why do you admonish Aiden to "Please discuss changes 1st on the talk page" when you adamantly refuse to do so yourself? Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel that way Jayjg, but I am tryig to discuss (see above) changes I would like to make to the introduction. AND YES having read the intro a few more times I agree with you, there is no need to repeat something twice in the introduction so I'm quite happy with leaving that bit out. what do you think of the above proposals about writing a bit more about Hamas activities other than SBs? --Yas121 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there a constant effort to have the following in the introduction when the exact same info is in the relevant sections! why repeat it seems to be just there to incite and nothing else of merit!
According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[7] In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members. Yas121 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you've now injected it into the body of the article doesn't mean it's not relevant for the lead. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jayjg, was that the end of your discussion?  "considering the fact that the article already states this in the relevant sections, why do you feel that you need to keep inserting it twice?"
--Yas121 11:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well? I think the intro is too long as it is and we need to shorten it. Yas121 01:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD disagrees. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you answer the above question?  "considering the fact that the article already states this in the relevant sections, why do you feel that you need to keep inserting it twice?"
--Yas121 22:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should state everything in the relevant sections, as well as the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of all important points in the body of the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK fine, fantastic even. I'll hold you to that as I'm going to do a Support section soon for Hamas and look forward to adding  a summary of that in the lead.
--Yas121 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support for murdering entire families just because they went out for a pizza?  6SJ7 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the U.S. State Dept, Hamas is funded by Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.[7] In a 2002 report, Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas' leaders "should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity" that have been committed by its members
Interesting.. this means i can hold bush family accountable for the war crimes against the iraqi, afghani and panamanian people.
DONT include shit like this, or i will include something on the bush talk page or this page which will directly attack this bias. HRW is simply a tool for Corporate America to point out the faults in OTHER nations BESIDES north america.Jeremy D. 14:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually HRW has complained about the USA supplying weapons to the Isrealis, along with the existence of Gitmo and many other Human rights issues. They are my opinion very fair, for example the letters they sent the USA and Iran and Syria over there involvement in the Lebanon conflict where identicle except for the names.Hypnosadist 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Jayjg, it's quite simple. If you include a Report from 2002 damming Hamas in the lead I will include a well sourced Rally from 2002 supporting Hamas in the lead. You decide. I won't put up with hypocracy. Regards --Yas121 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because two things happened in 2002 it doesn't mean they're equally important. A HRW report accusing Hamas leaders of war crimes is important, and if they're culpable, that culpability doesn't disappear with time. On the other hand, a rally is just a rally - I'm sure there have been many Hamas rallies before and since. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in response to the military occupation by Israel of [[Palestinian territories]]." 

message: It'd be much easier just to ban him dont you think admins?
This is tarnashing the name of wikipedia by allowing such a bias into your articles. Im ashamed of the admins for this. GROW UP and stop acting like the pro-zionist biased pukes you seem to be.
Jeremy D. 03:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this may seem like a new and revolutionary concept, but your opinions are not facts and it is, in fact, legal for people to have different opinions than yours. Jtrainor 10:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if those facts involve personal bias and Ad homiem attacks. Ad hominem attacks are not fact ... they are simply opinions attacking the personality of a person and ive seen the person stated do that MANY times to people.. especially on this talk board.Jeremy D. 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main ad hominem attacks I've seen here have been the ones you've just made. Please stop, as per WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. You please stop, as per WP:CIVIL Or i will Report all your posts that involve said Ad hominems. Also, racist comments are NOT considered WP:CIVIL OR WP:NPA. SEE. I CAN QUOTE WIKI GUIDELINES TOO :) Jeremy D. 15:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of my posts do you think contain "racist comments"? Or involve "said ad hominems"? Please be explicit. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And please review WP:NPA. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions 

message: I think a distinction that should be made is being missed. Hamas is not for the destruction of Israel - that is not their Chargter - it is for the LIBERATION of Palestine. If some 3rd party hadn't taken Palestine and given it to another 3rd party . . . Oh wait i guess if i say that i am an anti semite. . . Its the most absurd conflict caused by white folk (i.e. england and their cronnies) thinking they own the world and can make borders and take land at will . . .
This is just another example of the widely-popularized, irritating, and disgusting psycho-babble that the Western Mass Media uses to control the minds of the populace. Is Hamas "anti-Zionist;" perhaps... are they "anti-Semitic;" ridiculously IMPOSSIBLE!!! Arabs are Semites! Palestinians are Semites! HOW CAN SEMITES BE ANTI-SEMITIC!?!?!?!
Absurd!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a semitic thing. You wouldn't understand. Gzuckier 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Never heard this argument before!Hypnosadist 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't like the word antisemitism, replace it with Judeophobia or racism. Arguing over semantics is silly (can Argentinians not be anti-American because they live in the Americas?) 165.146.75.183 14:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Infinite don't bother thinking about this argument as its just chaff to distract from the suicide bombings and the other terrorist activities.Hypnosadist 13:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas "arguably 'anti-Semitic'" 

message: Hamas is anti-semitic...you cannot use the old argument that arabs are semites. Anti-Semitic, as we all know, refers to hatred of jews, not semites....ONLY JEWS....please do not try to feed us a liberal loophole....Oh, and Hamas is a completely terrorist organization...it would be better if they and all scum like them were wiped off the face of the earth....
Enjoy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.250.81 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The video you linked to has been deleted due to terms of use violations.  I can only assume it was because it was a propoganda film or simply an anti-semtic one.  cacophony ◄► 06:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See Antisemitism#Etymology and usage or a good dictionary. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Semites 

message: Ah why is the following being reverted (Especially by Amoruso who is in serious vialation of the WP:3RR Rule) for no apparant reason. It just adds further factual detail to the section...
**The ongoing operation initially consisted of heavy bombardment of bridges, roads, and the only power station in Gaza. Several PA facilities were also bombed, such as the Palestinian Interior Ministry and the office of the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya.
Please explain your reasons before reverting. Yas121 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yas121 you're apparently a real vandal. If you don't know what's WP:3RR then you stay quiet. You are in fact the one violating this and all other conventions. Take your WP:POV elsewhere. Also you might want to familiar yourelf with WP:CITE and WP:V and not use unsourced bogus material again in the future, thank you.Amoruso 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Israel-Gaza conflict 

message: I have changed the subheading "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" to "Anti-Semitic Rhetoric".  Aside from the tedious and meaningless conversation about whether or not anti-Semitism is synonymous with Anti-Jewish, I didn't see any conversation on this particular point (although perhaps I missed it).  On the main issue, however, it is deceptive to discuss "allegations" of anti-Semitism (or anti-Judaism); the statements provided are plainly and self-evidently anti-Semitic, and thus a subheading mentioning "rhetoric" is more appropriate than one using "allegations".  Dasondas 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know if Hamas has ever denied being antisemitic? I think that's probably relevant. IronDuke 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not suppose to pass judgment in an encyclopedia!! hence Allegations! we are NOT judge nor Jury. This is not a forum for POV Yas121 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. So, Yas, as far as you know, Hamas has never denied being antisemitic. Correct? IronDuke 22:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect! what is correct is that this point has been discussed before many times and resolved on the Talk page so I'm not going to discuss it again. Thanks Yas121 22:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it discussed, but I may be missing something. Could you point to a citation where Hamas has denied it? IronDuke 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See last part of Hamas#Allegations of Anti-SemitismCount Iblis 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Count. Upon further reflection, I'm not sure that either title being warred over is appropriate. IronDuke 22:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope that settles the matter for you. And yes it maybe a load of horse cra* or it may not...my point is/was it's not up to us as editors of an encyclopedia (that claims to have a NPOV) to decide. Yas121 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your point, Count Iblis.  Just like racists, most anti-Semites will tell you that they are not anti-Semitic.  This section has no relevant sources whatsoever defending Hamas against the charges of anti-Semitism.  Calling these charges "allegations" is extremely POV.  This article needs sources to back up the claims that Hamas is not anti-Semitic.  The charges of anti-Semitism against them are widespread and have been around for a long time.  Where are the counter-arguments, and why aren't they in the article?  Dasondas 22:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to hot debate at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid to see how such issues are dealt with. There, the issue has been debated for months now and there was a concensus to use allegations. -- Szvest 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "allegations" quite covers it. It's a little like "Allegations of Nazi antisemitism." But we should be sure to include, as we have, the denials of Hamas. IronDuke 22:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean here or in every controversial article? Your point is very important and i think there's a clear denial by Meshaal in the section. -- Szvest 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be very reluctant to say every controversial article must contain "X", except where WP policy (not guidelines) demand. But perhaps I'm not fully addressing your point? IronDuke 22:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iron, i think you addressed my point but you haven't compared this w/ the debate at article above. -- Szvest 23:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) I haven't read it recently. Honestly, there's a good deal more heat than light at that debate (and I'm talking about both sides of it) so I'm not anxious to wade through hundreds of KBs of flame and counter-flame. If you'd care to summarize any points you consider relevant, I'd be glad to reply to them. IronDuke 23:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of not repeating the same process here i gave a related and similar analogy (which is the article i mentioned above). If you simply read that article (or only the intro) you may understand that there are statements and denials (same as in our case here). However, participants at the debate agreed to use allegations. -- Szvest 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dasondas, my POV is that you can't just take statements that are made in the context of a big conflict where both sides are fighting and killing each other and then judge those statements in the same way you would judge similar statements if they were made by your neighbor in a casual conversation. But anti-semitic statements are what they are, regardless of the precise context. The denials by Hamas are qualifications to put the context back in. I.e. they say that they aren't against Jews per se, their conflict is with the occupying forces. Count Iblis 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fayssal, the allegations in the article you reference refer to allegations made by people who compare Israel with South Africa, because that comparison is controversial and might not be vallid. "Allegations" would be used in a different sense here, that is, allegations that Hamas has somehow made antisemitic statements, indicating that might not be true. At present, I would have trouble supporting this, as they are prima facie antisemtic statements. That does not mean that every Hamasnik is therefore an antisemite, but the nature of their statements cannot, I think, be reasonably questioned. IronDuke 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen to yourself... "because that comparison is controversial and might not be vallid" don't you think there are also people out there who think this comparison is controversial and might not be valid"?....dont' you think your POV is clouding your judgment? Yas121 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what answer you're expecting to your question? "Yes, my POV is clouding my judgment, thanks for pointing it out?" I don't know if you legitimately fail to grasp my point or are just trolling, but you might want to read my post again. IronDuke 00:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't we need an Admin to decide this? (or are you one?) E Jaffe 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we would, if there is consensus among the editors. cacophony 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Cacophony is right; the issue (and it is a tough issue sometimes) is forging a consensus.  This isn't an admin decision.  Admins can weigh in like any other editor, but on a content discussion such as this their status as admins don't give their opinions any more or less weight than they otherwise would have.  Generally speaking (with some unfortunate exceptions, however) admins have more experience at managing disputatious issues and applying Wikipedia policy, so any input any of them might want to share here is obviously welcome, but the issues raised so far don't actually require administrative assistance.  So, E Jaffe, what do you think of the substantive issue (title for the subheading)?  Dasondas 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to a middle ground NPOV version -Accusations and denials of Anti-semitism. -- Szvest 11:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I feel this is an appropriate and NPOV version. cacophony 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitic Rhetoric subheading 

message: I've out the article Policide on AFD, it is written in an entirely anti-Arab POV. It's like an article on the Atomic bomb that starts with the sentence: "An Atomic bomb is a very powerful weapon that Arabs are trying to obtain to wipe Israel off the map". While the topic itself may be encyclopedic, it isn't the current form and rewriting it would defeate the purpose for which it was created by the POV pusher.  Count Iblis 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on [[Policide]]  

message: The Palestinian Information Center is described here as "Mideast news from the Hamas point of view. In English." Clearly from a Palestinian point of view; what is the basis for saying it is from the Hamas point of view? - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link description 

message: This is a great article. Hamas always wanted to eliminate Israel. The Hamas charter which says that peace with Israel is contrary to them and a violation of Islamic law was always in force to the Hamas organzation even though hama sclaimed that they only wanted a Palestinian state with the capital as jerusalem. Also, Hamas did do suicide bombings. Hamas wanted a truce s they could build up their strength and when they are strong enough, would attack Israel again. Hamas sarted firing Qassem rockets a tIsrael and then Israel responded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.93.27 (talk • contribs) 14 November 2006.
:Thank you for clarifying that, because I'm sure that tons of people who knew what Hamas is were greatly confused about the group's tactics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is great 

message: In the lead: "Hamas is known outside of the Palestinian territories chiefly for its suicide bombings". Much cited, but all of the citations are not merely outside of the Palestinian territories but outside of the Arab or Muslim world. Is there a basis for claiming that, even among Arabs outside of the Palestinian territories, Hamas is known chiefly for its suicide bombings? Or should this statement have a stronger qualification than "outside of the Palestinian territories"? - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Outside of the Palestinian territories" 

message: We have extensive sections dealing with violent acts by Hamas. Violent acts against Hamas are almost exclusively covered briefly in the timeline. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asymmetric treatment of violence 

message: Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people in a democratic vote in which the countries that now call them a "terrorist organization" SUPPORTED. If you want to cheer for democracy and then put someone on a "terror" list the next day because democracy was not in your favor, you are not for democracy at all. This needs to be removed from the terror list as it is a legitimate political organization in Palestine. If you want to use the argument that a few countries have them on their list for terrorist organizations, then I would like to see Israel put on a list as a terror organization, it is considered that by a ton of Islamic countries, ALOT more countries consider Israel to be a terrorist state, than Hamas. Haramzadi 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deadliest terrorist action in the history of the Middle East was the King David Hotel bombing where 91 were killed.  On Wikopedia neither the Irgun or Menachem Begin who carried out this act are categorized as terrorists or terrorist organizations. If my memory serves me correctly the Begin appears under the Rebels and Revolutionaries category! If the wikipedia wants to appear impartial it should define what it means by terrorist and apply this definition impartially to organizations without bias. Abu ali 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No both Irgun and Hamas should be called what they are, Terrorists! only that is considered un-PC by left wingers and the supporters of whichever terrorist group.Hypnosadist 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, Hamas was widely considered a terrorist organization well before the election in question. Gzuckier 15:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Hypnosadist.  Both Irgun and Hamas were/are terrorist organizations in the sense that they both killed people for political gain and so they both deserve a place on the list of terrorists.  Hamas is certainly worse though since the Irgun specifically tried to minimize civilian casualties (read the King David Hotel bombing if you don't believe me) while Hamas repeatedly tries to maximize civilian casualties.  So, yes, they are both terrorists.  Including them on the same "list of terrorist organizations" is similar to adding Franklin Roosevelt and Adoph Hitler on a "list of leaders of countries during World War II." --GHcool 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamas to be removed from list of terror organizations on this site 

message: This page has been protected by User:Jayjg who is abusing his administrative powers in order to promote what is definitely not a NPOV.  he is also banning users improperly and without any evidence.
Someone needs to stop his abuse and strip him of his ability to censor POV's besides his own extremist one
:Please assume good faith, Jayjg has not done anything inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will only help if you can find a reliable source; until then, it cannot stay in the article. The eight sources provided all say that Hamas is known mainly for suicide attacks. On the other hand, the stuff you inserted does not have any sources whatsoever backing it up. Please read Wikipedia's WP:NOR and WP:V policies. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The previous editor was banned, period. We need to be careful to assume good faith, and not give opinions regarding matters about which we know nothing. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: "On November 2006 Hamas ended the truth sending a 64 old grandmother to a suicide bomb mission" cited to http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1742512006. Cut because "ended the truth" makes no sense at all. - Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the person who entered it meant "ended the truce"; do you think it wasn't noteworthy? Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the sentence under the Hamas#2006 Israel-Gaza conflict sub-section. I am not sure if it marked an end to the truce but i am sure it takes part of the 2006 conflict. Note that i rephrased it as well. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent sentence cut from article 

message: I am interested to know how people choose whether to associate with Hamas or Fatah. E.g., religious association, geographic residence, ethnicity, political views of the groups, etc.
I think this is relevant in light of the recent conflict and potential civil war in the West Bank/Gaza.
--207.151.249.24 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis of Hamas/Fatah Association 

message: Just wondering if any of u could help me with an artical on History of Fatah/Hamas tensions, which i know very little about, but believe its an important subject--Boris Johnson VC 13:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks interresting Abu ali 18:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help??? 

message: "Hamas has, however, repeatedly stated that it is only interested in operations against the Israeli occupation and not one single terrorist attack outside Israel/Gaza/West Bank has ever been attributed to Hamas." Is the latter claim here ("not one single terrorist attack") intended as part of what Hamas has stated (in which case it should probably be "and that not one single terrorist attack"), or is it intended as a statement of fact (in which case it should probably be a separate sentence, should be cited for, and the emphatic wording "not one single" should not be there)? - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: "Hamas leader says Israel's existence is a reality" -Yahoo News
Excerpt:
    
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Hamas acknowledges the existence of Israel as a reality but formal recognition will only be considered when a Palestinian state has been created, the movement’s exiled leader Khaled Meshaal said on Wednesday.
    Softening a previous refusal to accept the Jewish state’s existence, Meshaal said Israel was a “matter of fact” and a reality that will persist.
    “There will remain a state called Israel,” Meshaal said in an interview in the Syrian capital, in what appeared to be clearest statement yet by the Islamist group on its attitude toward the state it previously said had no right to exist.
    “The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel,” said Meshaal, who survived an Israeli assassination attempt in 1997. “The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent.”''
--Kitrus 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Hamas leader saying that Israel exists.  Where is the "right to exist" which is in this section's headline?  What is the "Policy Shift"?  Has the Hamas charter changed?  That charter also states that Israel exists.  (SEWilco 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No policy shift here, its the "right to exist" (ie not be geoncidally wiped out) that Hamas needs to accept.Hypnosadist 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Shift: Hamas Leaders recognize Israel's right to exist 

message: This subsection would seem to be open for significant future expansion. AnonMoos 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal action against Hamas