Talk:Hamas

Hamas does use human shields
And there is ample video evidence. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And only you have access to it? Hmm, sounds suspect. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * What is certainly true is that Israel uses human shields, and even after it's supreme court told the IDF to stop it, it is clear it has not.---Mona- (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. The human rights organizations have done their own investigations and found it to be bunk. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, stay in your echo chamber. You won't click on this link anyway Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Linking to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Need I say more? Are you going to trust independent human rights organizations or the IDF? Do I really need to say who is a more reliable source? And even then, the video proves nothing. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol, an interview with Netanyahu interspersed with a few video fragments of missiles being fired from nondescript buildings. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Are these images not prove positive that Hamas uses human shields? And breaks international humanitarian law in times of war... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because they are propaganda from the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry. --Gh1900 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty amateurish propaganda too. Lol, Avenger should feel embarrassed for linking these. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Even if I took that video seriously, the images are too blurry to determine if a building WITH CIVILIANS (your video shows no evidence of this) is being used by militants to shield themselves, with the civilians being coerced to act as shields. For all you know, those buildings could be empty after Hamas evacuated citizens rather than the other way around. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And Avenger, you should know that the IDF is an unreliable source. For example, they claimed that white phosphorus was not being used during the early days of the 08-09 Gaza War despite clear evidence (documented by HRW and the UN), only to later admit that it was white phosphorus. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamas has never used human shields, this is a myth. It's the Gaza Strip that is densely populated. --Gh1900 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel is the only side of this conflict using human shields --Gh1900 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * yet another paid Hasbara shill Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Omitting that Yousef worked with the Israeli intelligence over a period of 10 years. And having read parts of his book, made a number of inaccurate statements (related to Camp David in 2000, etc). ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A video of a dude telling how he converted to Christianity and switched sides making vague statements about Hamas's morality isn't what I'd consider "ample video evidence"... >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Avenger has still not adjusted to the reality that there are several editors well-versed in relevant facts pertaining to Israel-Palestine. To whatever extent his shoddy standards of "support" for his claims once may have worked here or elsewhere, they certainly cannot any longer work here.---Mona- (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Amnesty International, an organization that rejected a motion to condemn antisemitism in the UK, I am sure provides an accurate depiction of human rights in the Arab-Israeli conflict.. However, despite their noble and unbiased ability to monitor the ongoing conflict, I think that they may have accidentally overlooked a bit of evidence. I'm sure this evidence being overlooked was entirely accidental, and I trust that Amnesty International will correct their statements in the future. Kentuckyball (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I am sure reasonable people are able to observe and assess thesed facts and come to a conclusion as to how to include them into this article. For their non-inclusion, the facts are just too relevant imho... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean the so-called antisemitism in Britain despite the fact Jews rank favorably in public polls compared to Roma and Muslims? Amnesty rejected the resolutiin because frankly, it was bullshit and an attempt to deter criticism of Israel. I don't have the time right now, but your sources prove absolutely nothing according to the working definition of human shields. Also, as I've cited before, most of the Hamas fighting in residential areas is triggered by the presence of Israeli troops in those same areas, not the other way around. ChrisAmiss (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * More like pulled it out of your ass.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel is the party using human shields. More than 1200 times per its highest court, which has ordered the IDF to stop using Palestinian civilians, including children, as shields. The IDF has no intention of obeying, and is still using human shileds. I've documented this many times and can do so again.---Mona- (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also Kentuckyball, your source links to NGO Monitor which is led by Gerald Steinberg, who himself admits he served as a consultant to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you think you're fooling people by trying to be objective while omitting that crucial piece of information, it's not working. This site is not an outlet for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. NGO Monitor is a propaganda outlet that condemns human rights organizaions for having the nerve to conduct independent findings which find Israel to be in gross violation of human rights. ChrisAmiss (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait are you seriously denying Antisemitism based on poll results? Guess what... We did a poll among the GOP caucus... There are no racists among them. Problem solved Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When I think of antisemitism, I think of 19th and 20th century Europe. I think of immigration quotas. I think of majority public dislike of Jews. When the new antisemitism is brought up, there's usually a spike following an Israeli military operation and a PR debacle. That's not antisemitism. That's exploiting antisemitism to deflect criticism of the state of Israel and its politics. Much like how Islam apologists use Islamophobia to silence criticism of Islam and Islamism, people use antisemitism to deter criticism. If Israel and its like were genuinely concerned about antisemitism, it would stop saying it represents the interest of World Jewry/the Jewish population when defending Israel's criminal conduct. Netanyahu says he represents the world's Jews when it comes to the Iran deal? Great. When Israel goes to war over Iran, don't say I didn't warn you if there's a spike in antisemitic attacks. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And another dipshit blaming the Jews Zionists Israel for antisemitism, cause it doensn't want to be driven into the Mediterranean...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying Israel is responsible for Antisemitism makes about as much sense as saying Mugabe is responsible for anti-black racism... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Antisemitism means something clearly distinct, an irrational hatred, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews over the fact that they are Jews. When people seek to erase the distinction between Israel and Jews or says that what Israel is doing is good for the Jews, they are themselves engaging in antisemitism because Israel is then held as a "Jew among nations" or as a representative of the Jewish people. When you erase that distinction, you are making it more likely that people hold Jews collectively responsible for what Israel does. This would be no different than Christian extremists claiming that what Christian terrorists groups do is good for Christianity or whatnot. When you erase that distinction between policies of a government and the racial group, we run into problems because people start associating the two together more than they should. Israel's policies should be independent of the discrimination and hatred against Jews. Israel is the state of Israel, not the state of the Jewish people. A hatred of a government is not the same thing as hatred against a racial group. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And now Chrissie is talking crazy talk again by trying to pit Israel against the Jewish Diaspora, excuse thinly-veiled antisemitism hiding behind an anti-zionist fig leaf and implying Israel to be on one level with Christian terrorist groups.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I were Jewish, I wouldn't want Netanyahu as a leader claiming he represents me nor groups claiming the actions of a country are meant to serve my interests. I don't want to get into a fight over Zionism, so that should be left for a separate argument. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's somewhat of a Non sequitur...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mentioned pitting Israel against the Jewish diaspora, hence why I included that first as to whether the Jewish diaspora has a favorable view of Israel currently or over the past decade(s). ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is completely possible to think, that Israel is totally awesome and to think, that Bibi is a stupid motherfucker.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "Israelkritik" which floats around in the German discourse is strange all by itself... I have never ever heard anybody talk of "Frankreichkritik" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Human Shields
Hamas did use Human Shields, at least in 2006.

BBC More BBC Moar BBC BBC picturesCorruptUser (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the standard type of tactics used by an inferior military force against a vastly superior one, especially when the territory being contested is a 139-square-mile-city. When your troops are subject to constant airstrikes from the opposing force, and you also have lots of civilians all around, massing them in a strategic area is a great way to deter an airstrike. And if one does strike the building and kill civilians, that's great propaganda to get other international actors to sympathize with your side. "Look at all these dead kids and women that were killed by the evil enemy!". If Hamas were to order all civilians out of the fight area and engage in a 'fair fight' with the Israeli Army, they would be trounced. That's precisely why Hamas is not engaging in a fair fight. They'd lose.


 * You could argue (rightly) that inviting more civilian casualties is bad behavior, but a couple of things still remain. First, it's a fucking war. People, including civilians, die all the time in wars. When you're fighting in a city of 2 million people, there will be large numbers of casualties. Hamas is simply drilling this point into the heads of everyone watching abroad, and it also makes Hamas seem more necessary to the people living in that city. This war is going to be brutal and bloody anyway. To clarify: I do not support the actions of Hamas in this case.


 * So who is at fault? Both sides. One is knowledgably and whole-heartedly electing to bomb a populated city, knowing that there's a high risk of civilian casualties, and the other is playing along and pumping up the casualty count as much as they possibly can to gain support and maintain power. It's a terrible situation to be in, but for the inferior side (Gaza). Israel has the ability to stop this. They could withdraw all Israeli citizens and soldiers from the West Bank, and end the blockade of Gaza, allowing any and all materials and people in and out, and this whole thing would not be 10% as bad as it is. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They did withdraw from Gaza, and the rocket attacks and tunnels weren't happening before. They are in the West Bank now, and it's peaceful in comparison.  Hamas also has the power to end this now as well; agree to recognize Israel and end the attacks, and in exchange the blockade is lifted.  Every offer they make is either "10 year peace" which means they damn well intend to break it after 10 years, and every map and symbol they have is of all of Israel.  Their definition of "Israel occupying Palestinian lands" is not "Israel in WB and Gaza" but "Israel existing at all".  I agree, as I've said time and again, that the settlements do have to go, but I'm under no illusion that that will actually lead to peace with everyone.  After all, there wasn't peace before 1967, and during that time it was all "'48 borders! '48 borders!" rather than "'67 borders!"CorruptUser (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That Hamas has encouraged civilians to gather publicly in proud defiance of the Israeli military is well-attested. That the latter can be considerably less positively phrased as Hamas stimulating people to volunteer as human shields is also true. Whether an element of coercion is involved is far less clear, however. Suicide is typically not seen as a crime these days and sacrificing oneself for one's nation is even seen as noble and heroic. Basically, if these people want to peacefully assemble at a targeted area and are willing to risk getting blown up if they can symbolically give Israel the finger that way, wouldn't it be kind of reppressive of Hamas to tell them no? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When you are actively encouraging people to commit suicide for no good reason, sorry, you don't have the moral high ground.
 * Granted that over in that region, the moral high ground is below sea level... CorruptUser (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Human shields entails a coercive element. When citizens engage non-violently against a planned, illegal military attack against them (which is terrorism itself), that is non-violent civil resistance. If police during the civil rights movement claimed that protestors who were nonviolently protesting were forming human shields, would we truly buy that? No, and the same applies here. So the links you provided don't debunk what the section says on human shields. And no, they did not withdraw from Gaza, it's still occupied. Israel maintains effective control of Gaza through the borders, air space, waters, population registry, among others. That is simply what the law says with regards to what constitutes occupation and what the Red Cross/human rights organizations have come to in their conclusions. Those aren't Hamas apologetics, they're simply facts according to reputable sources. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say Hamas and a sizable amount of Gazans would disagree with you about it being "for no good reason". 141.134.75.236 (talk)
 * There's a strain in pacifism and non-violent resistance that sometimes, throwing yourself at the enemy is a morally courageous act designed to elicit public outrage and garner sympathy for your cause. Gandhi himself said Jews should throw themselves into the gas chambers. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Gandhi had some, uh, interesting ideas about what people should do in response to the Nazis. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, rewrite the section, but include the links. CorruptUser (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Gandhi only worked because he was facing the British. Had he faced the Mongols... CorruptUser (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed some of the wording but included links. Again, this is not a defense of Hamas, but I am relying on what reputable human rights organizations have determined and I think it's best for our website to not endorse pro-war propaganda that doesn't fall in line with the on-the-ground facts corroborated by these organizations. It's important we stick to the meaning of words, human shields in this case, and not distort it or alter its understood meaning. Human shields entails deliberately forcing someone to shield you from military attack. Nonviolent civil resistance or fighting in urban areas (which is densely populated enough as is) doesn't qualify under this definition. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind this accusation isn't really new coming from the IDF. They've leveled the same accusations at Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War, and HRW found no evidence to corroborate these allegations (source: http://www.hrw.org/node/10734/section/10). IDF are not always the greatest purveyors of truth to put it lightly, so their claims should be treated skeptically. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And here's the other question - if the shoe was on the other foot, if the tables were turned, if the Zionists were faced with an asymmetric warfare scenario in which they were the weaker rather than the stronger party, would they behave any differently? Consider the Siege of Masada, where the Jewish Zealots committed mass murder-suicide, killing their own wives and children (whether those wives and children wanted to die or not) rather than permit the Romans to capture them; is that not even worse than what Hamas is accused of doing? 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Zionist militias were not opposed to fighting in urban areas during the 1930s and 1940s, sometimes putting their weapons near civilian areas, not to mention using terrorism at a time of virulent antisemitism in Europe. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Zealots were facing the Romans; the fate that awaited the survivors was crucifixion or a life of slavery and constant rape. CorruptUser (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also what the hell, we are talking on an I-P thread and we are doing so relatively civilly. It feels weird.  Too weird... umm... Your usernames all indicate inadequacies in the bedroom that you will never admit to!  There, normal. CorruptUser (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to be in the place of a woman having to choose between suicide and a very high likelihood of being raped. But, the problem with what the Zealots did, is they didn't give the women the choice, the men made the choice for them - and as such, it wasn't suicide, it was murder (a species of honor killing, even). The only two women who survived (Josephus, The Jewish War, 7.9.399) did so because they'd hidden from the men, not because they were given the option of living (with a high probability of being raped) versus dying, the men insisted on making that choice for them. The two women who survived, (as far as I know) history doesn't record what happened to them; while it is not unlikely that they were killed or raped or tortured, it is also entirely possible that the Romans treated them mercifully (just as Vespasian had treated Josephus himself)  07:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Does something that happened literally two thousand years ago really have all that much relevance today? Pizzameister (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there were Jews living in Israel/Palestine two thousand years ago, but if you think that's not relevant, that's fine with me. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * I think it is more relevant who is living there now at this very moment. But of course if the Palestinian "right of return" can be inherited, why can't the Jewish? Pizzameister (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice use of scare quotes there. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Can you "return" to a place you've never been to? Ironically, in some ways the Palestinians are now "Arab Jews" insofar as they are disliked by most of their host countries, are often (mis)blamed for various ills and yearn to return to a homeland that isn't theirs anymore and that they don't even know anymore. Someone once said "Everything in history happens twice. First as tragedy, than as farce." He may have been right. Pizzameister (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think restricting movement from one country to another for non-criminals is a farce. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Well tell that to... Every country on the face of this earth for the last two thousand years at least. Apparently humans like their walls, their fences, their lines in the sand... Pizzameister (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That does seem to be the case, regrettably. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

One good idea is to set the countries according to the ethno-religious makeup of the land. That seems like it would solve some problems. If this were implemented, Gaza and the West Bank would be ruled by the Palestinians, not Israel. Also, to Pizzameister, The Arabs were there for more than a thousand years before the Jews started to arrive there again. And the "right of return" generally refers to the right of Palestinians living in Syria and other places to return to the 1967 borders. Not something else. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Most Israelis would be happy with Gaza and most of the WB ruled by Palestinians. Problem is that the Israelis don't want those two ruled by people who intend to invade Israel.  As for right of return, if you mean to an independent WB and Gaza, sure, if they want to take in the refugees they can. CorruptUser (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss whether Hamas uses human shields, shall we?
Of course you reverted this edit despite the countless sources I offered. You may have been right to impugn one or two of the sources but how anti-Zionists who like to cite UNRWA (the agency whose only job it is to create Palestinian "refugees" to "help") don't believe them when they say Hamas has hid their rockets in one of the UNRWA schools at least three times does not lack a certain irony... So please, instead of just pointing to sources you don't like, do explain how sources you usually like come to support the fact that Hamas uses human shields... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who reverted your edit. I don't cite UNRWA for anything. Instead, I'm skeptical that the only sources that agree with you seem to be dodgy ones. If you can find REAL sources, I'll be glad to agree with you. Citing Daily Mail, however is usually the same thing as conceding an argument right then and there. 68.200.26.93 (talk)


 * Remove Daily Mail and that Christian thing for all I care. See if it weakens or strengthens my point. I am generally of the opinion to take the truth no matter where it may come from, but if you have reservations against citing those sources (like I have reservations against citing Electronic Jihad), I am not gung-ho about them... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is, independent organizations like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch find no evidence that they engage in human shielding, and this is coming from groups who have criticized their extrajudicial executions, uses of torture, and general human rights abuses (http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/08/06/gazaisrael-hamas-rocket-attacks-civilians-unlawful). As for the UNRWA claim, the schools were not occupied by people during the summer (summer break after all), meaning that militants who stored weapons there were doing so with the knowledge that people weren't inside, disproving the claim that they entered those schools to bring people harm or use them as shields. As noted in the article and according to sources like the Red Cross, human shielding requires a coercive element of directly forcing to act as a cover for militant activities, and on these grounds, human rights groups find no evidence Hamas uses them. There are plenty of factual reasons to criticize Hamas on with regard to its poor human rights record, but the claims of human shields here have no basis in fact and are borne out of blood libel propaganda done to exonerate Israel from its attacks on civilians, hence why it keeps getting reverted. And it is not in RationalWiki's nature to endorse claims which do not have a strong basis in evidence from non-partisan sources. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "And it is not in RationalWiki's nature to endorse claims which do not have a strong basis in evidence from non-partisan sources."
 * Care to put your money where your mouth is and remove Electronic Intifada and other such "sources" from the pages here? CorruptUser (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you direct me to sources where they're linked? I will remove them. I've always taken the view we shouldn't include EI as a source. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Chris What exactly is wrong with EI. I tend to view any link as justifiable if said link is factual.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 19:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In my personal view, if I want to make a reasoned criticism of say Israel, I want some credibility on the matter so it can't easily be refuted. That's why I always cite from NGOs like Amnesty or B'tselem. If pro-Palestinian partisan websites get cited, then the same will happen with pro-Israel partisan websites as well, and I don't think partisan websites on this conflict is the direction we should take. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I see but I think that you can still avoid adding those sites generally but still use them when they are factually correct. For example, if EI is the first to break a story on Israeli police misconduct I would link to them but would otherwise avoid op-eds by them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 19:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would wait for a news organization like Haaretz or Times of Israel to report on it because there's a wide array of blogs on both sides that do their share of whitewashing (like we do with Breitbart) and or other use of logical falicies. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the Times of Israel can also be quite partisan as well.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To some extent (and perhaps can be said for most news organizations with an editorial stance), but they have professional standards to abide by like other news organizations, which I cannot say the same for blogs like Israellycool or UK Media Watch that for instance cite from hoaxes like Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial or from the IDF to push an agenda. I would be cautious against using blogs in this conflict here because it tends to lead to whitewashing of war crimes, omission of historical documents, distortion of statistics, etc. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * True but their assertions may not always be wrong, AFAIK, EI has done investigated work and has been cited by more mainstream press outlets. The same can be said of UKMW which has found actual instances of antisemitism but is also quite partisan (also I have never heard of "Israellycool" but that is an awful name). Btw what is your opinion of +972Mag since Mona cited them as well?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 19:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Israellycool apparently calls itself a conservative blog that has an Israeli bias.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 19:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Israellycool lobbied CNN to declare Jerusalem as Israel's capital in order to push the Israel government's stance that the annexation of East Jerusalem should be recognized for instance (the international community and law in general rejects this), so I'm reluctant to include blogs for that reason (source: http://www.jpost.com/International/Exclusive-CNN-puts-Jerusalem-back-on-the-map). ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 972 seems more respectable to me given that the majority of writers there are left-leaning and are pretty compassionate to victims of both sides of the conflict. They cite from human rights organizations. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I wasn't saying that we should cite Israellycool, only that they appear to have a severe right-wing slant so I probably wouldn't trust at all compared to UKMW. Do you know anything about the Mondoweiss since I have seen them toted before?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC) 20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like Chris removed EI. Thank you for that. CorruptUser (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that (and I had never checked before) EI actually has a fairly good reputation for accuracy worldwide. From their Wikipedia Page Hannah Brown of The Jerusalem Post calls EI "one of the most elaborate" sites of those that give a "Palestinian perspective of the news", going on to describe EI as "very professional, user-friendly and well written," and added that it "is adorned by photos, such as a picture of a lone, small Palestinian boy aiming a stone at an Israeli tank."[9]

Other[edit]

Political journalist and editor of the left-wing magazine CounterPunch Alexander Cockburn stated "there are a number of excellent news outlets for those who want unjaundiced reporting. ... The Electronic Intifada ... is trusted."[11]

NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch major mainstream newspaper, recommended The Electronic Intifada to its readers in 2006 at the height of the war on Lebanon. NRC wrote, "The Electronic Intifada (EI), a news site in English, reports from a Palestinian perspective, but as impartial as possible. EI is often faster than the established media."[12] 68.200.26.93 (talk)

In general working on the "opposite side agreeing" principle gets you closer to the truth. What do I mean with that? Let's take a historical example: Julius Caesar writing about the Gauls obviously has an agenda. If he writes about attacking a certain tribe without having been provoked, it is most likely accurate, because what exactly would he gain from making that up? So Electronic Intifada might indeed be a source worth considering if what they report on are e.g. Hamas war crimes. Just like we can cite Netanyahu or the IDF spokespeople on things that make Israel look bad (provided we do not willfully quote them out of context). Of course on some things there will never be agreement, and maybe reporting them in a "he said she said" style does make sense. That being said, I think there is a general disagreement about the bias of "human rights organizations" or UN agencies. Most supporters of Hamas and the likes think they are honest and trusworthy when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Most supporters of Israel point out that UNRWA would soon be out of a job if there were no "Palestinian refugees" and the UN in general is dominated by nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, hence all the anti-Israel resolutions but hardly any condemnation of the Saudi or Iranian abuses... So if we cite the UN, we should at least mention that they are very often criticized for an anti-Israeli bias and a UN denunciation of anti-Israeli actors is therefore particularly remarkable... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what this talk page needs?
Some arguments about who's biased.

Who's a little biased source?

You are!

Yes you are!ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Paid Zionist Hasbara shills spreading lies about Hamas
Have a look at this. It is from Egyptian TV. Do ask your Egypt-Arab-speaking friends whether the translation is correct if you doubt it. 149.210.131.21 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Shut up Avenger. 00:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is Avenger? 149.210.131.21 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What the hell is wrong with the OP (There is no user name so I went with OP)? While Hamas seems more sane than other terror groups, they are still a terror group.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article pro-Palestinian propaganda???
It has been thoroughly verified that Hamas uses human shields. Which user was stupid enough to deny that in this article????? Unclescrooge (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There actually is a lot of propaganda from both sides on the "human shields" claim, so it's hard to know what is bullshit or not at a casual glance. But yes, even a report from the UN that Israel didn't like said Hamas uses citizens to shield military assets. That section needs a lot more balance, it seems. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Pro-Hamas" does not equal "pro-Palestine". 14:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Long story short, years ago, half the wiki had a huge fight over the I-P articles. The damage had been done and a lot of us kind of threw up our hands on the I-P stuff lest we begin the wars again, even in cases like the BLM article that really has no business having the I-P stuff inserted in there.  15:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this Hamas case, but it's sad how damage on RW usually lasts for so long. I'm having a hard time fixing articles on economics written by the same three users ten years ago. Almost everything they posted is fractally wrong, even if we consider the views of the fringe economics schools that they allegedly adhere as correct. GeeJayK (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like to think I got the Israel article into good shape. 16:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)