Talk:Hamas

	This Islam related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)

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. PB (talk) 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. [1] 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". ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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. CorruptUser 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. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of cleaning up

The past few days have shown that the "terrorist" label for Hamas is more than well-earned.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of cleaning up

The Terrorist label on Hamas is unwarranted, only Western Europe and US/Canada use that description ^{— Unsigned, by: 196.127.240.80 / talk / contribs}

Terrorism is the purview of the non-state actor, or at least definitionally speaking it was until Trump decided to label an entire branch of the Iranian government a terrorist organization. Objectively speaking Hamas is a terrorist group, regardless of what you think of them or their cause. Their tactics are designed to provoke. "Send a message." Terrorist groups do terrorism because it works, it's an effective strategy. That's why they're terrorists. It's a tactic. Carthage (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

the label is only added because it was listed if you go by that the definition the state of Israel is a terrorist Organization because what they do in Gaza, they're a resistant actor that defends the Palestinian from and external threats (view the Operation Cast lead), you can add a section of Human rights violation but not in the definition, or add some countries considers them a Terrorist Org for clarity. ^{— Unsigned, by: 196.127.240.80 / talk / contribs}

Israel is a state. Hamas is a movement. Carthage (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel is doing terrorist act in another "technically a country" if you went by your definition Mahata Ghandi and Nelson Mandela could be considered a terrorist, also they're a movement and a party that's trying to establish an independent country, making the introduction section a propaganda ^{— Unsigned, by: 196.127.240.80 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 02:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Remind me, what's the template for that again? Because it's hilarious. Carthage (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

{{signdammit}} --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{See my latest prototypes} 03:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)