Talk:Hamas government in the Gaza Strip

message: Oh great, yet another work of fiction masquerading as fact.  As if Wikipedia didn't have enough of them already.  6SJ7 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more specific in your criticisms. As it is, your comment has zero value for improving this article. Eleland 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to improve this article.  It is about something that does not exist.  6SJ7 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand. There's a group, called Hamas, which has officials, a police force, military, etc, set up in the Gaza Strip, they're enforcing law and order, people have even jokingly talked about "Hamasistan" and "the three-state solution". Are you objecting to the name "Gaza Strip Government", which may be something of a neologism? Or do you just not want to acknowledge that a separate government exists, de facto, in Gaza? Eleland 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start with the name.  Just because something happens somewhere in the world doesn't mean it's necessary to create an article about something that may be the case for only a few weeks, with a made-up, original-research name.  But it is a bigger problem than just the name.  I have the same problem with the fact that someone added Gaza to the List of countries, which fortunately was corrected.  I think people need to just relax a little and not try to write history while it's still happening.  6SJ7 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really argue with that. There does seem to be a "frist psot!" mentality at work, which favors the immediate creation of an article for every single event. Do you think this information should be merged and redirected to Gaza Strip? Eleland 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be merged somewhere, or simply deleted. The name is unreferenced and it is unlikely that either Hamas or its opponents would use this name. The information in the article looks similar to and probably duplicates information in other articles on the recent conflict. --JWB 06:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old criticism 

message: I have changed the name of the article to "Governance of the Gaza Strip" and removed all references to "Gaza Strip Government". I hope this addresses some of the concerns mentioned in this discussion.
Dn9ahx (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: I suggest any information unique to this page (which is not much) be merged into the article on Palestinian National Authority for the simple reason that Hamas has never claimed it is an entity separate from the PNA (and recognizes Mahmoud Abbas as the legitimate president).  There do exist two separate governments that claim to be legitimate, but they both operate under the name "Palestinian National Authority". --Fjmustak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that. Nableezy (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Nonsense - See North Korea and South Korea - they both claim to be the "true" Korean state, and claim soveregnity over the entire Korean peninsula. Same Hamas and PNA claim the entire Palestinian territories, and claim to be the only "legitimate" representative of the Palestinian people.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with PNA 

message: As someone who came here to learn more about Gaza, I was frustrated that this article fails to explain why Hamas and Fatah
are in conflict, how their values differ, etc.
Avocats (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine years later, this incomprehensible gibberish quoted above is, unfortunately, still unchanged. 188.111.51.114 (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest Commentary

message: Please don't delete this without the due respect of reading (and even possibly commenting) on the content.
Hamas was elected to fill a majority of Assembly seats. They were not elected with the mandate of overthrowing the REST of the democratically elected government and institutions that legitmately existed and helped govern the Gaza Strip. This fact was not duly reflected until my edits were made. My edits allow for the fact that Hamas had legitimacy because of their election originally, and the questioning of that legitimacy after they violated their election mandate. It is patently one sided to not make note of this.Gamesformay (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: you are confused on a few things, Fatah attempted a coup in Gaza, Hamas repelled the coup. Gaza itself does not have elections exclusive of the PNA, so the 'democratically elected' bit is probably overplayed. But your additions are not appropriate, it is your own commentary on the situation. Please read WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. Nableezy (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text: How can Fatah, which is the hand of the PLO (who is the ONLY legitimate voice of the Palestinian people, as voiced by many international declarations) attempt a coup??? The hamas won 45% of the vote, not a majority, only a plurality...and most certainly not a dictatorship. I paired down my edit. I have now only made the edit that hamas controls gaza and that hamas won a plurality of 45% of the Palestinian Assembly seats. This is no commentary on my part, zero.Gamesformay (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newer Commentary 

message: Since it has so far led to nowhere - let's make a poll of editors invovled in the article on the proper description of the Hamas rule in Gaza. The options are parliamentary democracy with postponed elections (official position), theocratic dictatorship (POV but seems to me reliable term), Single-party state (not fully correct, but de facto Hamas is the only party performing ligislation), unitary state (a somewhat soft term to describe the Gaza entity). We can also use two terms since the situation in the Gaza Strip is highly controvercial and confusing, not saying temporary (on the other hand North and South Koreas are temporary for now 62 years already).Greyshark09 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Im fine with "Currently governed under a single-party system" if you want. But whether Gaza is a state or not is not simply semantics. nableezy - 14:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree to "single-party system".Greyshark09 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I think "Authoritarian" would probably be the best description since there are multiple, very recent, reliable, verifiable sources that describe it as such, as noted above. We also have this from Rolling Stone that describes Hamas rule as autocratic rule. So based on the sources, "authoritarian" or "autocratic" would be better suited descriptions--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So yeah to make it clearer I'd cast my vote as "authoritarian."--Activism1234 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

text: It appears so. What Al Ameer says appears reasonable, my suggestion is to vote on that after a decision is decided though, since the wording of the final outcome may affect whether editors - including Al Ameer (wasn't sure whether he wants that included for all or only "single-party entity") - want that included.  Is there any precedent for including those words though? --Activism1234 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is "single-party state" definition, but since Gaza is not a state we would slightly modify the definition into "entity".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

text: If you agree with Al Ameer, then you also agree to include "single-party entity"?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to basics

message: There are several poor sources used in this edit. The edit uses idfblog.com to say, in the encyclopedia's voice, that Hamas holds summer camps to educate children in such topics as holding a Qassam rocket launcher to aiming at Israeli targets, and also conducting paramilitary exercises. The edit then uses a youtube video from PMW to claim that Hamas staged a re-enactment of the capturing of Gilad Shalit, then uses an editorial to claim that Hamas also regularly indoctrinates children. That's just the first 3 sentences. None of those sources, which are used repeatedly, are acceptable for making such statements of fact in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 00:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I realized that some people would have an issue with the use of the IDFblog reference. As such, I included another reference right next to it. In addition, I included a slew of references to a diverse array of sources throughout the edits, which would be sufficient even without the IDFblog reference (which itself is accurate and contains its own links to articles), and which back up the link.  
The references I used include, but are not limited to, the following: 
*Journalistic articles, such as The Jerusalem Post, CNN, Palestine Today, and Palestine Press Agency. 
*Anti-Hamas media outlet 
*Photo essays of summer camps in Palestinian media outlets 
*Statements by UNRWA officials 
*YouTube videos showing Palestinian children's television shows, as well as videos showing the summer camps. 
The PMW video is a real video taken from a media-watchdog group that records Palestinian television and uploads it to YouTube.  If I watched Palestinian television that day at that hour on that channel, I too would've seen it.  If needed, I can add in articles as well to support the PMW video. 
The editorial cited an article and then explained it.  That was the reason for the editorial reference. 
As a whole, these references certainly qualify as real sources, and even if we were to remove one or two, the rest would still stand perfectly tall and be able to back up those other references. There is no reason to remove this critical information. If needed, I can find more references from news articles, political pundits, YouTube videos, Hamas statements, and Palestinian media outlets. That is not an issue.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I call on Al Ameer to self-revert himself, as I explained above my wide array of proper journalistic articles, representing Israeli, American, and Palestinian (pro-Hamas and anti-Hamas) sources.  If necessary, remove those containing links to YouTube videos until that can be dicussed further here.  There was no reason to remove the rest.  A statement by a UNRWA official or a Hamas spokesman about the summer camps should not be washed away because it makes Hamas appear in a negative light.  I wrote down facts, not opinions.  Again, I didn't write "Hamas summer camps indoctrinate children to blow themselves up."  I wrote down that Hamas has summer camps to educate children in a wide array of topics, ranging from... I wrote topics that members of Hamas mentioned as well...  It is silly that this is not considered a reliable source.  Again, I expect a self-revert immediately.--Activism1234 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Education section edits

message: I will state here my support for the removal of the flammatory, poorly sourced claim that the government is a dictatorship. The Carnegie source states that the government is authoritative, this is very from saying its a dictatorship. The Rubin one is just a rant that includes broad generalizations and notably false statements. I forget the other one's and am confused by the page's history to find them... But still, no dice for such edits. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It just got removed but, 

message: The government of the Gaza Strip has already been reshuffled, which was described by the sources as a defacto new Hamas government ,. This changes the situation and requires another article or even two. I think that this article can be kept the same (or maybe renamed to "Hamas Administration in Gaza" because al-Sharq al-Awasat published an article suggesting Hamas moves towards official diplomatic regulations ) and include chapters on the first and second Hamas governments. Thoughts?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a bit thin. A new article for every cabinet reshuffle is excessive. The two articles cited for the reshuffle are in fact the same article. I don't see anything here to warrant reviewing the unanimous decision against an almost identical name change suggested several weeks ago. Also, I can't find the "defacto new Hamas government" quote in any of the sources. Dlv999 (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the Palestinian Government article - it includes all PNA governments from the inception of PNA, while only one article on a Gaza Strip government. Technically, the first Hamas government and the Administration were same same until early September 2012, but now the Hamas Administration (this article) is not the same as Hamas Government (there are two governments).Greyshark09 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about "the Hamas Administration", it is about "the Governance of the Gaza Strip", which currently happens to be run by a Hamas administration. This was made clear in the recent discussion where your suggestion for a name change was rejected unanimously. Dlv999 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is a Hamas administration, are you implying it should have another article?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamas government change

message: This article is about the government right? So why is there so much stuff about the Gaza Strip in general rather then the government specifically, e.g. the  "Demographics" and "Health" sections? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, apparently this is not about the government, and this is why majority of editors opposed mine and later your proposals for rename. This article is about "governance of gaza strip" (which is a notable issue) and technically also describes the geopolitical entity within Gaza Strip, currently ruled by Hamas.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I currently split an article on Hamas government of 2012.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Governance, government, whatever. My point stands, why is there so much stuff about the Gaza Strip in general rather then the governance specifically. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, you make a very valid point. If this article is about the governance of the Gaza Strip, then those sections you mention have no place here. I think the point of it was to show the territory's "culture," "demographics", "education". etc. under Hamas rule. But that's information for another article. I would support its removal. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

text: We could remove the stuff from this articles infobox that's not about the Governance, if you want to discuss the Gaza Strip infobox, discuss that at Talk:Gaza_Strip#Infobox. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is specifically about the governance of the Strip so it doesn't make sense that it gets the infobox of a geographic entity. The Gaza Strip on the other hand is an entity and unlike the West Bank, it's no longer occupied or disputed. However, the Gaza Strip shouldn't be treated as separate from the quasi-state of Palestine. Unless the Hamas govt. officially secedes, I think treating it as such would be premature. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i tend to agree - we better put move the geopolitical infobox to "Gaza Strip" article, but then it means that Gaza Strip is separate from Palestinian "quasi-state" in West Bank.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is about the government, right? 

message: Should we call the Hamas regime the "Hamas Government in Gaza"/"Hamas Government" or "Hamas administration in Gaza"/"Hamas administration". This article can't seam to make up it's mind as to which terms it wants to use. 
Aslo the "government" terms   seam to be much more commonly used then the "administration" terms. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been any response here, so per the Google results I guess we're going with "Hamas Government in Gaza". Something I noticed that was rather odd, Hamas Government in Gaza was redirected to Hamas government of 2012, but that articles just about the Hamas Gaza's 2012 administration. This is article is about the Hamas Government in Gaza, tough it's scope is somewhat broader then just the HGIG. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Hamas and Fatah claim rule over the same area, just as N. Korea and S. Korea claim whole Korea. This article name is fine, mayve just a bit corrected to "Government of the Gaza Strip".Greyshark09 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's arguing that we should change the article name. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Apparently, there are very few articles saying "government of <entity>", but rather "politics of <entity>". I hence think this one should be named accordingly Politics of the Gaza Strip just like Politics of the Palestinian National Authority, Politics of Egypt and Politics of Israel.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Korea analogy doesn't work. The PNA is not a state nor a country, it is a body for local self-government in a transitory period. The two disputing cabinets do not make territorial claims, and the dispute between Ramallah and Gaza PNA cabinets is detached from the issue of statebuilding. Contrary to the fiction being peddled in Wikipedia and elsewhere, Hamas has never stated that it wishes to separate Gaza from the PNA. And for what it is worth the two bodies do maintain somewhat functional but frosty relationship, manifested by the fact that funding for PNA activities in Gaza Strip are channelled through the Ramallah PNA structures. Thus the PNA is still one, albeit having contenders for the throne. I think the article would need to be reworked quite heavily, weeding out a lot of 'Politics of x-country' material and focusing of the Gaza-based cabinet itself (such as listing of ministers). --Soman (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Soman's take. The Korea situation should stop being brought up, it's a completely different situation. Among other things, the Ramallah govt. still pays the salaries of tens of thousands of civil workers in Gaza and the Hamas party leadership has recently repeated their assertion that Gaza is inseparable from any Palestinian state. They have lent their support to Abbas' UN bid for observer state status and both sides still officially advocate unity. The reconciliation deal has not been discarded but its implementation has been delayed for political bickering. Wikipedia could only state as much. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes PNA is not a state nor a country, but a state is a set of governing institutions and such PNA is very much tied into the statebuilding process. Just the same 'State of Palestine' is obviously not the PLO and yet it is de facto the same, as all recognition of the state came through PLO work. Based on PLO recognition as the Representative of the Palestinian people and compliance with the question of Palestine, its declaration was accepted. Based on its agreements the PLO, they gained partial sovereignty and through PNA they showed ability to administer the territories, gaining more and more recognition. Skipping ahead even the latest UN vote, reaffirmed that the PLO is the only Palestinian representative. So Hamas and Fatah is more than just semantics. --Mor2 (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "hamas government" vs "hamas administration" 

message: @Mor2, why did you restore the economic section? It has been moved to Gaza Strip article per common agreement that this article shall be used to describe the government system of Gaza, rather than other issues.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the economic section, but subsection within it, that had relevant information to Governance of gaza, during our time period. As for the rest of the sections you moved  I agree completely with the move.--Mor2 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly also need to move also sections on demographics and religion, which have little to do with government and politics.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Governance of the Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111233151/http://www.cogat.idf.il/Sip_Storage/FILES/1/2181.pdf to http://www.cogat.idf.il/Sip_Storage/FILES/1/2181.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726062323/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_special_easing_the_blockade_2011_03_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_special_easing_the_blockade_2011_03_english.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article covers rather "contemporary" governance of the gaza strip; it does not cover previous governing bodies and/or entities; as the strip is a distinct area since 1948, the article is missing egyptian, israeli and hardly palestinian governance prior to 2007.--Uwe a (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Hamas government in Gaza.GreyShark (dibra) 22:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of the governance 

message: Dead link Islamic State in Gaza
Link to Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.38.253 (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISIL 

message: I propose adding a subsection under "2016 Hamas administration." The section, titled "2019 protests," will read:
In 2019, hundreds of Gaza residents protested on the streets against grim living conditions. Hamas accused the Palestinian Authority of fomenting these protests; the Palestinian Authority denied the charge. Responding to the protests, Hamas arrested and beat protestors and journalists. The Palestinian Authority news organization Wafa published pictures of Atef Abu Saif, the spokesman for Fatah in Gaza; the pictures showed Saif, bruised and bandaged, clothed in blood-stained garments and lying on a hospital bed. The Independent Commission for Human Rights in Gaza alleged that Hamas dispersed 25 protests and arrested 1,000 people, 300 of whom remained in custody. Protest "organizers say the protests will continue until Hamas cancels taxes on dozens of goods, creates a national employment program and releases everyone who has been arrested in the crackdown." E8QLx4L (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See 2019 Gaza economic protests.GreyShark (dibra) 13:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. – Levivich 00:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2019 

message: The page does not even mention Yahya Sinwar, who is supposedly the "de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip"?! Kidburla (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahya Sinwar 

message: "According to OpEd Columnist Thomas Friedman of the NY Times, Gaza has been woefully mismanaged by Hamas, Gaza is pumping all its drinking water from its coastal aquifer at triple its renewable rate of recharge."
a) "OpEd Columnist Thomas Friedman of the NY Times" -> NYT opinion columnist Thomas Friedman
b) "has been mismanaged by Hamas, Gaza is pumping" -> "has been mismanaged by Hamas. Gaza is pumping" (comma splice)
c) Is Friedman the source of the claim regarding the aquifer? The column is paywalled but it seems likely he's citing a different source for that. Could a better source be used for that claim?
d) Why is this line in the "Current Budget" section? It makes no mention of budgetary concerns and is unrelated to the preceding content. (Also, it would be nice if a section called "Current" was more up to date than 2012-2014 but that's another can of worms.)
Apex Editor (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Budget Friedman line 

message: pls,
can't find the name of head of parliament and parliament members of gaza... pls make it simple. you give alot of history. they still make history. but the functions of today, names, titles, i can not find..
tnx 188.255.250.94 (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  can't find the name of head of parliament and parliament members...  

message: , , , , , , , {, ,  
Currently the lede's last sentence is "In February 2017, Ismail Haniyeh was replaced as leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip by Yahya Sinwar." but the citation leads to "The Gaza Strip 11 November 2017 Updated: 26 February 2023"https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip archived edition: "Background on the Gaza Strip Published: 1 Jan 2011 Updated: 14 Jul 2014"https://web.archive.org/web/20160119015043/http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip neither of which mention Haniyeh or Sinwar. Mcljlm (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fixed this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede: 2017 

message: Most of the quote starting "Responded with another citizen of Rafah" doesn't make sense. The link in the citation doesn't lead to anything with the translated quote. Mcljlm (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 fuel crisis block quote 

message: Gaza is part of Israel and controlled by the Israeli military. Hamas is given only the most nominal control, with Palestinians subject to kidnapping, murder, and physical assault at any time by the military. 2,000,000 Gazan residents have been herded into this 141 square mile concentration camp for the past 30 years. Water and electricity have been rationed and the state of siege has put the area in a state of famine and pestilence. While the two-state solution has been roundly decried, it is already here in an apartheid form with structural violence, dispossession, and economic hardship visited on the less fortunate segment of its population. The 25,000 tons of bombs provided by the US government that have already been dropped on Gaza since October 7, 2023 under the guise of self-defence amounts to 177 tons per square mile, or 1/80 of a ton per person. 174.29.183.191 (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Governance of Gaza