Talk:Hamas/Archive1

Seems to take the perspective that Hamas is right, which I don't think is something we should be advocating...-caius (historian) 14:12, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Not to mention being pretty poorly written. Smyth 14:17, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I took a quick stab at cleaning it up. Not that it's a great article. Or well written. DickTurpis 14:25, 21 November 2008 (EST)

It's been mission tagged for two months now. Not a great article, but I think it relates to the missions (fundamentalism & whatnot) so I'm gonna untemplate it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:06, 26 January 2009 (EST)

This article has pretty much no actual info about Hamas in it, apart from the idea that it fights Israel. I'm going to try to re-work it later tonight. Dewgale (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Virgins link

I don't know what the ed poor is supposed to do, but it isn't doing anything. Thanks if anyone can/will fix it. --En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 17:29, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Bias

I am the user known as DEATH TO ALL JUICE. FREE PALESTINE!!! First, I would like to apologize for my previous near-vandalism, as my family was killed in a IDF attack. Was not thinking rationally, blinded with rage.

What I want to discuss is that your Hamas article is terribly biased, reeks of Zion propaganda. It does not mention how much they help us in Palestine. We Palestinians want out of Israel, out of Zionist control. We have no privilege in Israeli Zionist state, we are oppressed. Hamas wants to change our reality, wants to free us from Zionists and Western puppets. Yes, people have to die, but we have no other choice, Zionist government doesn't listen. They don't care. We fight back.

Hamas is not anti-Semitic, they just want to free us from Zion and Zionists. Classification as terrorist is Zionist lie. Palestinian (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

>not antisemitic

>at least 8 mentions of Zion

LEL: TOP. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333} 20:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, I am very offended by you mocking me and our struggles against Zionist trash. Is very triggering and offensive. Fuck who brought you to this life.

You are of Zionist blood. I would like you to not talk in this, conflict of interest is too strong. Palestinian (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh noes! Some chick I don't know was born in Israel 1500 years ago and I was descended from her in a much different place! Damn it, now I must hunt your children and make matzo with their blood, as is Jewish tradition. Nevermind my more immediate Lebanese and Haitian ancestry.

On a more serious note, anyone who rattles about Zion is a giant anti-Semite. I'd advise you to stop talking before you start quoting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{"Ritsuko, the truth is[...]" "Huh. You liar"} 20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, being anti-Zionist seems like a somewhat reasonable position. You don't need to hate Jews to dislike the state of Israel. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OP: "It does not mention how much they help us in Palestine." The article: "Hamas is also involved in numerous social welfare programs and is popular among Palestinians (largely because they offer the only social welfare available). It is estimated that up to 90% of their activity is focused on "social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities". Now, if it weren't for that pesky 10%...Hamas is also well-liked by Palestinians because of their relative incorruptability (at least compared to Fatah)." Father Vivian O'Blivion talk 20:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The user previously knows as "Death to all juice"? Seriously? I really think you should have a clear idea about whether you wish to kill fruit products or fruit producers.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Death to all juice. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin'} 21:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas propaganda

While this article does mention the general tendency of Hamas to say one thing to international media (usually in English) and another thing to their serfs followers (usually in Arab). When Hamas complains about the high death toll to international observers they at the same time praise the "martyrs" who protect their rocket bases (which they do in fact often build in schools and the likes). Furthermore it might be prudent to mention, where the raw material for Hamas rockets and tunnels come from - the concrete for the tunnels and the fertilizer used in the bombs is delivered by Israel as part of their humanitarian packages. So quite literally they steal from their people to kill more Jews. Which of course many apologists won't see or want to see, as they are very cunning in portraying themselves as the "victim" and "just a liberation organisation" in the media. Which is quite absurd regarding their treatment of gays, women, oppositional people, religious minorities (including atheists) and basically anybody not fervently enough a jihadist, given half a chance. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen in British media, Hamas is either reviled outright or both it and the IDF are treated as being as bad as each other in not solving their differences out (I think this is a consequence of the Good Friday agreement, given how the Troubles were often compared with Palestine in the '80s; if they could die that down, it's reasonable for other people to assume this would). Hamas itself doesn't really appear even in BBC news reports; they focus more on civilians caught up in the fighting and less on the fighting itself.-- Forerunner (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So guess where the pictures of "innocent suffering civilians" usually come from... Pallywood is alive and well, just remember how at first the "ship to Gaza" was considered an "humanitarian mission" by "unarmed pacifists" when as a matter of fact the IDF soldiers were almost immediately attacked with iron rods and several of the organizations bankrolling the whole thing (read all except the useful idiots of European left wing persuasion) were hard core jihadists trying to score a political or propaganda victory against Israel. And while I can understand how a British source would compare "the troubles" to what happens in Israel, there is a huge difference: During the troubles neither side advocated the extermination of their opponents. Hamas openly calls for killing all Jews. (Yes they still do that. They also still quote the "protocols of the elders of Zion" in their manifesto). If all this is just "outdated folklore" as Hamas apologists like to say, why don't they change it? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the BBC's shifting towards said-"crying children" footage to be evidence of a pro-Hamas bias in itself; it's a standard practice for their news reports to show crying children, an empty marketplace and (if recent) an old woman who lost her leg. I haven't really seen a clear pro-Hamas attitude in Socialist groups in Europe, outside of those pro-Syria Communist groups who hate countries just because the US is friendly towards them, and the odd loon who thinks that he can get elected by assuming all voters are bigots and reaching out to them. The mainstream groups mostly just blame the poor Israeli-Palestinian relationship on Israel's unwillingness to change their borders to whatever each Socialist group thinks is the best solution. Since I'm in the UK (Western Europe having had a lot of Jewish-Socialist influence), I wouldn't know if Socialist parties way out in Hungary or Bulgaria openly support Hamas or otherwise refer to militants as 'concerned citizens'.-- Forerunner (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The German radical left (including parts of the party "Die Linke" which is represented in parliament and a number of state governments, even leading one) is divided into two strands. One being "anti-imperialist" which means the rather "classical" Anti_US and anti_Israel point of view; this goes as far as members of federal parliament for "Die Linke" being aboard the ship to Gaza. The other strand (and by far the smaller one) in the radical left in Germany are the so called "anti-Germans" (Antideutsche in German) whose main motivating factor is best summed up in "Never again Auschwitz, Never again antisemitism" and as such they support Israel and its right to self defense, as necessary to make another mass murder of Jews impossible. Furthermore the "Anti-Germans" tend to view the US favorably including but not limited to some of their military actions (though they agree that e.g. the Vietnam War was a bad idea, they mostly think that e.g. the war in Afghanistan does have some justification). I think I grossly simplified it, and as you might know there are at least twenty opinions if two leftists meet, so make of that what you want 141.30.210.129 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Never quite understood why the Left supports a Salafist group like Hamas, which represents pretty much everything that was wrong with Europe 500 years ago. It has among its goals the elimination of all the advances that Liberalism brought, ranging from democracy and women's rights to acceptance of homosexuality and religious tolerance. At best I can guess that it has to do with contrarianism, supporting them only because the Right opposes them. In the same vein, never quite understood why the Religious Right doesn't support the Salafis more, other than the Bush's and Saudis being best buddies. Probably because they aren't the "correct" religion. CorruptUser (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

First point, I don't think anyone on the left would be sane to support Hamas' political platform considering they're an Islamist group, and Islamists tend to be socially conservative much like the Christian right. I think the user above makes the error in conflating supporting a people's right to self-determination and right to self-defense under foreign occupation with support for the entirety of the group. This is a straw-man, and the user above knows it.

Second point, what you call Hamas propaganda is in reality a refutation of the pro-Israel propaganda you constantly add (from human shields to citing the IDF). Your use of the term Pallywood, a particularly nasty ethnic slur that accuses Palestinians of faking their deaths and injuries, isn't doing you favors. Would you say that Israeli Jews who were victims of suicide bombings were faking it? Would you say Bosnian Muslims were faking their deaths in Srebrenica?

I will counter some of your points. On using rocket bases in "schools and the likes" as you claim with civilians inside, this is not verified by human rights organizations. Amnesty noted in 2014, "Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to ‘shield’ specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks". Source: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israelgaza-conflict-questions-and-answers-2014-07-25. This is consistent with what human rights organizaitons like Amnesty and HRW have been saying for years, that Hamas is not using human shields. Ironically, there have been cases of the IDF engaging in human shielding, as seen in the latest report by Physicians for Human Rights Israel on the Gaza 2014 conflict. Source: https://gazahealthattack.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/gazareport_eng.pdf.

On whether Hamas is truly dedicated to elimination of the Jews, it's worth bearing what Israeli officials have actually said. Here's what the International Crisis Group: "Fewer rockets were fired from Gaza in 2013 than in any year since 2001, and nearly all those that were fired between the November 2012 ceasefire and the current crisis were launched by groups other than Hamas; the Israeli security establishment testified to the aggressive anti-rocket efforts made by the new police force Hamas established specifically for that purpose". Source: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Israel%20Palestine/b039-gaza-and-israel-new-obstacles-new-solutions.pdf. Now, why would the Israeli security establishment say such a thing? Are they also complicit in Hamas' alleged calls for extermination of all Jews? Get serious.

On whether Israel is truly being "humanitarian" in sending supplies to the Gaza Strip, again it's worth quoting what diplomatic cables have said: "Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.. Israeli officials have confirmed.. on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge". Source: http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3972840.ece#.U9ThOI1dVZY. This is not surprising, given that the latest World Bank report on Gaza report it has the highest unemployment rate in the world. As far as whether the blockade is about security, it's worth noting what Israel prohibited from entering the strip upon imposition of the blockade, including: chocolate, baby chicks, chips, etc. But please, keep complaining that it's about security *eyeroll*

TL;DR This user is trying to justify Israel's mass murders in Gaza. I hardly would call this liberalism in the face of evidence documented by cables, crisis groups, and human rights groups. ChrisAmiss (talk)

Even, if, for argument's sake we accepted that Hamas' charter is genocidal, it's worth noting that the charter contains a caveat which the user above has omitted dishonestly. This is from article 31 of the charter: " 'Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your houses, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loves the just dealers.' Sura 60 (Al-Mumtahana), verse 8". Source: http://thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html. The user doesn't cite this for good reason, because it would undermine his thesis about Hamas calling for the extermination of Jews.

On other note, the user is full of shit when describing the Flotilla individuals as jihadists. As Norman Finkelstein wrote reflecting on the Turkel Report: "The Israeli Turkel Report alleged that the organisers of the flagship Mavi Marmara were jihadis hell-bent on killing Israelis. It had some difficulty sustaining this charge, however, because the most lethal weapons ‘smuggled’ on board by these would-be jihadis, according to the Turkel Report itself, were slingshots and glass marbles, while it was hard to explain why these young, burly fanatics did not manage to kill a single Israeli commando, not even the three who were being held captive by them". My goodness, slingshots and glass marbels against well-armed soldiers, how dangerous! *Sarcasm*. The source for the lethal weapons cited by Turkel Report can be found on pages 222 to 225. ChrisAmiss (talk)

Well you are probably also familiar with the fact that Israeli soldiers in the Ship to Gaza incident were attacked with axes and iron rods. Hardly glass marbles... And the Israeli military on more than one occasion offered them to give their stuff to the Israelis in Ashdod, go home unperturbed and have it delivered under international surveillance to Gaza. Furthermore several witnesses (friends and family of said people) have confirmed that several people aboard the ship to Gaza went on the ship with the intention of "becoming martyrs". Three of them did get their wish (which is probably why they attack Israeli soldiers in the first place, knowing full well that the capture of an Israeli soldier will get you a response, especially since the Gilad Shalit case). The family of Gilad Shalit also wanted to get a letter to him on board - the organizers of the ship to Gaza denied the request. Also, even your beloved (and biased against Israel and the US) Amnesty admits that the Hamas committed war crimes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGdLbCqQp7A. But I guess for the dedicated anti-Zionist there is nothing that "smears the good name of Hamas" that he or she will accept. I thought this place here was RATIONALwiki, not make excuses for Hamas wiki 141.30.210.129 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also Hamas themselve say they use human shield https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXZEzbT0H1s (in Arabic of course, the useful idiots in the European and American left might catch their disregard for human life otherwise...) ALso once more, see this FRANCE 24 video are they now biased as well? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Reason for constant reversions

Is there any reason why the - now extensively footnoted - fact that Hamas uses human shields is constantly reverted? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

seeing as there is none, I shall reinstate it. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Because you misuse source information and you cite constantly debunked propaganda points (PRATTs). You are an apologist for Israel's war crimes and try to justify it by claiming that Hamas uses human shields. The sources you cited mention firing from residential areas, not inside schools, mosques, hospitals, among others. Your citation of a Hamas POW admitting that they used mosques for military purposes mentions they did so "under interrogation", which is not a reliable piece of information given that people can be coerced into making false confessions. Human shields in international law entails a coercive element in which you deliberately coerce people into becoming shields to hide military posts. You misrepresent the YouTube citation of a Hamas spokesman as evidence of human shields, when in reality it's a non-violent attempt by Palestinians to prevent their homes from getting destroyed for no particular reason. For it to be called human shields, Hamas militants would have to be deliberately forcing Palestinians to go on rooftops, which no evidence has been found.

This is Amnesty's statement during OCL in its report 22 Days of Death and Destruction: "[C]ontrary to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of “human shields”, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. It found no evidence that Hamas or other armed groups forced residents to stay in or around buildings used by fighters, nor that fighters prevented residents from leaving buildings or areas which had been commandeered by militants".

Here's a statement by HRW in one of its reports on OCL: "In the cases documented in this report, Human Rights Watch found no evidence of Hamas using human shields in the vicinity at the time of the attacks. In some areas Palestinian fighters appear to have been present, such as in Khuza’a and the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City, but this does not justify the indiscriminate use of white phosphorus in a populated area".

If fighting from urban areas is example of using human shields, then Israel would be doubly guilty. Is the defense ministry not located in Tel-Aviv? Is Israel not itself using human shields by persuading people to move into Jewish settlements in the West Bank despite that being a declared war zone by the IDF? ~ ChrisAmiss

Can't remember the IDF shooting from residential districts. You comparison is nonsense.--Arisboch (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Chris Amiss, ask yourself what your opinion on the matter would be if every instance of "Israel" were to be replaced by "Surinam" and every instance of "Hamas" were to be replaced by "The South American Hindu Defense Front". It appears that there are different standards applied to Israel as opposed to the standards commonly used for any other nation. What should any country do, whose citizens are constantly attacked by a group that claims as its goal not only the destruction of your state, but also the murder of all people that bear any resemblance whatsoever to your citizens. When the Rote Armee Fraktion killed a couple of higher ups (not even all that high up, the most important person they ever killed was the attorney general) in the 1970s, Germany basically shut down public live and suspended almost any civil right you can think of (warrantless wiretapping included). Now imagine if the Rote Armee Fraktion had been shooting rockets from inside the GDR. You could not have said "war crime" fast enough for the war that would have broken out immediately. All this does beg the question: Why? Why do so many people judge Israel the way they do, and don't seem to judge other countries and groups the same way they judge those involved in the conflicts with Israeli involvement. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No that comparison is not nonsenset considering human rights groups have documented cases of the IDF shooting from behind Palestinian individuals with guns hoisted on their shoulders. Israel stations its troops near the southern border where it conducts raids and shoots at fishermen/people who walk along the buffer zone. Israel has its troops firing upon Palestinians when near the settlements in the West Bank, so it's a valid comparison.

I've already addressed the point about Hamas being allegedly committed to Israel'a destruction and extermination of Jews. The Israeli security establishment has said Hamas enforced the cease fire and suppresses rocket fire. Even the Israel Foreign Ministry said the rocket fire in 2008 was "in retaliation" for a provocative raid on November 4th. If Israel wants Hamas to stop attacking it, it should stop provoking it. As political scientist Avner Yaniv put it, the reason Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 was because of the Palestinian "peace offensive". Similarly, when Hamas states they'll settle for a state on the 67 borders as attested by Israeli leaders own words, what does Israel do? They attack because they are not ready to relinquish land they are not legally entitled to. ~ChrisAmiss

Wait a second. Who is legally entitled to what land again? After the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank ended in 1967 it has been disputed territory ever since. As a matter of fact Jordan's occupation was only ever recognized by a handful of countries (Britain among them for some reason). As for Gaza, it already is under de facto control of Hamas. And the border to Israel is actually open more often than the one to Egypt. Now, why is that... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, only Israel considers the territories disputed. The World Court, international community, UN, Red Cross, and human rights organizations all consider it occupied territory. The ICJ ruled in July 2004 that the West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian territories and that annexing territory acquired in the event of a war is inadmissible. Otherwise, if Israel's position is correct, then Hamas has just as much right to eliminate Israel and annex the whole of it for itself. Do you want that? If Israel can annex territory, it sets a precedent where any country can argue that they have a right to reclaim land. That's what Saddam did when he annexed Kuwait and what Russia is doing with Crimea. And you're mistaken about that, Israel still occupies Gaza through control of the waters, air-space, borders except Rafah, population registry, and buffer zones established that allows for daily incursions. ~ ChrisAmiss

"Inadmissible"? ALL borders were ultimately drawn by war, directly more so then indirectly. It has not ended since the creation of the UN, not by a long shot.--Arisboch (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

War is quite literally the raison d'etre for any nation state in current or former existence. Force or the credible threat of force is the main reason why borders and hence countries exist. A border without force (or the threat of it) is meaningless. The border between Germany and the Netherlands is currently meaningless, as everybody can cross it without any credible threat of force. The border between North and South Korea, on the other hand... And your examples for taking land by force are poorly chosen, as the only reason Saddam gave up on annexing Kuwait was not some lofty international law (which he evidently never gave a rat's ass about) but the credible threat and subsequent deployment of massive military force by the US and her allies. Putin on the other hand can go around annexing Crimea (and the international community will at some point accept) precisely because nobody is stopping him. Criminal law can be enforced because the state is a higher institution than its citizens. Who is this higher institution in international law? Who could enforce a warrant for war crimes against the President of Russia, China or the US? Is it a coincidence that the five permanent members of the UN security council are the five biggest owners of nuclear weapons? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am referencing the preamble of UN Resolution 242 Arisboch. And those examples were not purely chosen, you misinterpret why I included them. Saddam annexed Kuwait because he argued that Kuwait was the 19th province of Iraq and thus disputed territory. Russia annexed Crimea because it argues the territory was formerly Russian. And don't give me the garbage about how nobody's doing anything to stop them. Iraq suffered brutal sanctions and Russia is undergoing sanctions by the EU for its disregard of the law. Has Israel suffered any sanctions? (No). If, as you acknowledge, countries can do as they please and disregard international law without repercussion on account of its power, then you must also acknowledge that Palestinians, if they had a chance, have a right to eliminate Israel and create a new border for itself. It would help them usher in a new nation state, at the very least. The world powers are themselves responsible for upholding the law they created and signed to (Geneva Conventions for example). I'm not sure what's so controversial about holding them responsible. ~ChrisAmiss

I believe in the normative power of the facts at hand. If I take stuff that isn't mine, the government has the power to throw me into jail. If I found a country strong enough to take stuff that isn't mine, nobody is able to do anything. And well no, the Palestinians have no right to wipe out Israel. Just like Prussia had no right to its textbook example of how nation states are formed three wars in 1864 (against Denmark), 1866 (against Austria) and 1870/71 (against France) that resulted in the foundation of Germany. The question in international law however is only very rarely "who is gonna let you" but rather "who is gonna stop you". I am no libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but international relations are a mix of lofty goals that are impossible to enforce and big nations bullying the small ones while ignoring all rules. What else is the embargo by the US of Cuba? Is there any right rhyme or reason to it? No. It is just by might makes right, nothing else... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Troll alert tingling. Tielec01 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well you could have answered the content of what I said, but calling me a troll is fine, I guess. Do you deny that "international law" is the law that is most often ignored? I don't want to say that makes it right, it just is a fact. If I kill somebody in Somalia, there is no government entity to stop me. The same is true more often than not in international law. That is a bad state of affairs, but unless nation states willingly give up (part of) their sovereignty (as has happened in the case of the EU) there is no way to make nation states comply with any set of rules other than by (collective) aggressive acts of other nation states (e.g. war or sanctions). Just calling on a country to respect international law is like calling on a thief to give back the handbag. It might achieve something one time out of a thousand. But most likely, it will get you laughed at. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Locked the page

Too much edit-warring. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

well, now you have to justify why you chose to not include the well documented human rights violations perpetrated by Hamas in your locked down version of the page... Go on, I'm waiting. And don't bring up silly non sequiturs like it being "badly written" 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Locked to the status quo ante before the edit-warring began. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the edit warring only began when legitimate edits were reverted without any reason given even after the issues mentioned in the edit summary were addressed (which should in any case have been discussed at the talk page first) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ending all your sentences with "peace" makes your attitude appear no less dismissive 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My two problems with the recently reverted edit are:

• It's too detailed to be in the lede.
• Some of the sources are poor (eg. Times of Israel, Wikipedia).

It should be placed under a new section heading and those sources improved to non-partisan news sources, otherwise I think it is a halfway decent edit. Tielec01 (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Stupid question, I know, but what disqualifies the Times of Israel as a source? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

At the very least you must accept the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you can't find a source without this appearance then maybe the statement is not worth having. Tielec01 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for asking a stupid question once more, but why does the Times of Israel (I don't know whether they are regarded as right or left wing) constitute a source where a conflict of interest has to assumed? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you being querulous or are you just fucking stupid? Should we start filling this page with references from the Palestine Chronicle? Tielec01 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You do realize, that Israel (as opposed to most of the Middle East) has a free press that can very well write whatever the fuck it wants. Even including a Holocaust caricature contest (yes it happen; yes it was in an Israeli newspaper). Do you, by the same token consider Der Spiegel (a German weekly) inadmissible as a source in the debate about Rote Armee Fraktion (a terror organization that attack the West German state)? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there better sources that say what you want to say or not? Tielec01 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And newspapers in a free press are never biased? Sure. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP that begins with the same three numbers as mine: Yes there may be bias in a free press, but there may be bias in everything, thus this has no relevance for the matter at hand. I don't believe you mean this kind of arbitrary skepticism seriously. User:Tielec01, I may be able to find another source (though I can't guarantee it will be acceptable to you) if you say what particular statement was backed up by it. Also I can't see why linking to a WP paragraph which is uncontroversial at other RW articles suddenly becomes such a big issue here... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We prefer not to link to WP, link to the primary source, it's part of RW's inferiority complex (it is controversial in other articles but not so much recently). I think the reference was in relation to Hamas using schools as cover - there should be a UN press release on that matter on the web somewhere - I've no idea how difficult it will be to get. Tielec01 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You do notice that there is WP as a footnote in this very article as of right now...141.30.210.129 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Gazans ambivalent about Hamas

I added a sentence about members of Gazan civil society supporting Hamas' ceasefire demands during Operation Protective Edge, and why they did. Hamas isn't always super popular in Gaza, but it is also true that Gazans rally to them when under attack, and definitely share some of their (just) demands.---Mona- (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I also added a sentence about how some Gazans/Palestinian-activists view Hamas vis-a-vis the "peace process." It seems wrong to have an entry on the elected leadership of Gaza that doesn't give insight into how the Gazans/Palestinians themselves see things. Are there objections to that?---Mona- (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Finally, I added the positions from a major policy speech by a Hamas leader in response to Obama and Netanyahu. This article has simply been too light on what Hamas actually has been saying its goals and demands are in the current era. I know my edits will be disagreeable to some, but I hope to see good faith, substantive reasons for not including Gazans/Palestinians -- as well as today's Hamas spokespeople themselves -- in an article about Hamas.---Mona- (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes that are nothing but the editor's unsupported opinions of Hamas and its purported motives add no quality to the article.---Mona- (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Stick any kind of intifada (electric, nuclear or magic) where the sun doesn't shine.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Abunimah has wriiten in the NYT and is cited by them, as well as other reputable outlets. He's a respected voice of the Palestinian POV. That POV, and the FACTS it stands on, merits inclusion.---Mona- (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That would be a Inverse Stopped Clock moment on their parts, then.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to have an article on Hamas be almost entirely drafted by Zionists who hate it with the heat of a thousand sons. (Or by others who know little about the Palestinian POV and where that is found.) The Gazan people are conflicted about Hamas, but not about all of it's positions or demands, and Hamas is who they elected, after all. Their voice matters.---Mona- (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pray tell, when was the last election?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Whenever it was, Hamas remains the elected voice of the Gazan people, whose civil society supported Hamas' demands last summer. You are silencing their voice out of this entry, as is Avenger. Either by omission or by tendentious edits of their positions. Why cannot the Palestinian voices be allowed to stand alone, to speak for themselves?---Mona- (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Whenever it was- -Mona- Care to state a date? Did they get elected the perpetual total rulers of Gaza?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, Gazan civil society supports Hamas' demands of Israel. Hamas remains the elected voice of Gazans.---Mona- (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(SCHEIß DIE WAND AN!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 edit conflict) How? Through elections? Oh wait, the Hamas didn't conduct any elections, since they came into power by a counter-coup. Getting elected and then suspending the election process? Now where did we saw that the last time...^{Mona-bawl-prevention: I'm not talking about the Nazis. Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by that fucking senile shit Hindenburg}?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

An election that took place how long ago? --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Paravant, if you think that's relevant, point it out in the article. But Gazans elected Hamas, and their civil society strongly supported Hamas last summer. Hamas was elected in the first place because the Gazan people felt Fatah was not representing their just demands. Hamas is corrupt, but it also is one of the least bad choices those people felt they had as against their oppressor under circumstances of severe siege. Silencing them entirely because of the length between the last election is not reasonable---Mona- (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Last time I checked the elections NINE YEARS AGO were for one government to govern over all Palestinian territories. Since thaen a lot of things happened that usually change the opinion of voters. Among them the minor facts that Hamas is just as corrupt as Fatah... oh and THEY STAGED A COUP which tends to hurt you at the polls, unless you are Hugo Chavez, who ran on a platform of "remember the failed coup? Yup, that was me!". Anyway, if Hamas is the voice of Gaza, Hitler was the voice of Austria in 1938. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

SYSOPS, we need page protection

I've edited to include facts and positions taken by Palestinians, with citation to sources and justifications for all my edits on the talk page. Others won't engage me on the talk page, or one simply is rejecting the source because the source is Palestinian. The edit warring won't stop, apparently, until these other users are compelled to defend their choices.---Mona- (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am a sysop, to don't tempt me^{*Warning, irony, so that you don't start to bawl about me wanting to slap you down using my status as a sysop*}.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Then we need another to intervene. You are not reasonable.---Mona- (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Be careful, what you wish for...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

One has. What isn't reasonable is posting a proposed change and making the change before anyone can even see the proposed change and respond to it. Then start screaming about everyone else being unreasonable to you doing whatever the fuck you want. I don't give a flying pile of dog shit what the edit or source actually is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What you accuse me of, Emerald City, is not so. I did the bulk of my edits yesterday. Simultaneously, I added a section ot this talk page explaining my edits and asking for discussion or objections. That didn't happen, just a reversion(s) by two people I've battled before whenever the issue pertains to Israel. They will not abide anyting that is at all representative of the Arab POV. I sought to engage them on the talk page, but they wouldn't do it.---Mona- (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas-POV/electronicintifada-POV ≠ Arab POV.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not for you to determine. Many, many Arab voices contribute to Abunimah's site, and that site in turn is tuned to by other outlets, including NYT, for representation of the Palestinian POV. You are strongly pro-Israel and not in a position to decide who should not speak for the Arabs.---Mona- (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"You are strongly pro-Hamas and not in a position to decide who should not speak for the Arabs."--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a sysop too. Need me to help? CorruptUser (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Paravant already did.---Mona- (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Palestinian edits need defending

Let's take an example. This paragraph:

Of course when analyzing any public statement made by Hamas, it is necessary to understand that they have two sets of propaganda: One for "domestic" consumption, usually in Arabic and one for "international" use which is often in English or other major world languages. While a conciliatory tone is sometimes audible to the casual observer[16] in the international Hamas statements, domestic press releases and speeches are usually the same saber-rattling "death to Israel" claptrap as always.

The reader checks the fn looking for documentation, and finds this:

Though Hamas are masters of sounding more generous than they really are; A "long term" truce in exchange for a "right of return" and no Jews outside the 1967 borders? Sounds reasonable on the face of it, but neither is it peace, nor any demands that could survive an election or referendum in Israel.

Unsupported, unsourced, extremely tendentious opinion is not fit for RW. The fn is yet more assertion and ill-opinion of Israel's main enemy. How does this sort of material make any sense among intelligent, well-educated adults?

Hate Hamas all you like, but they are the elected voice of the Gazan people (whether or not you think there should have been another election by now), and Gazan civil society supported Hamas and its demands last summer during Israel's bombardment that turned much of Gaza into rubble and killed 2200 people. This entry should not be editing out the Palestinian voice, or undermining it with unsupported and inflammatory, mere opinions. But if you disagree, a substantive set of reasons would be welcome.---Mona- (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

They were the elected voice of the Gazan people, choosing to not hold elections after you get in a fight with the other half of your government tends to limit how much of a legitimate voice you are. Unless you found no issues with the pre-liberalization RoC government being "the representatives" of China.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"They were the elected voice of the Gazan people, choosing to not hold elections after you get in a fight with the other half of your government tends to limit how much of a legitimate voice you are." Except Gazan civil society ratified them last summer, in their basic demands. Moreover, the elction issue is irrelevant to the points I made above about the inadequacies of the text.---Mona- (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(do you hear the edit conflict?) Wait, Mona are you seriously saying Hamas does not vary its tone depending on the audience? Every terrorist group does that. Unlike IRA, Hamas has the benefit of being able to use a different language when talking to the world thaen when talking to their subjects. Though the dog whistle is still strong with Hamas, which is why I included an analysis of Hamas rhetoric in the footnotes. Where else should I have put it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Elections are what make a government Legitimate representation of a people - there have been no elections, regardless of what moves they have made since last summer. They are the government of the people, but they are not the legitimate -elected representatives- of them any more than I am a legitimate elected moderator of RW, I just happen to have the powers still.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's not even getting into gerrymandering, the questionable electoral system and myriads of other issue of the election NINE YEARS AGO. It only takes them another six to beat West Germany in terms of "longest period without elections" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Elections are what make a government Legitimate representation of a people" Everything I have to say about the lection issue per se I have said in the new section below. That issue is largely irrelevant to the points I made in this section.---Mona- (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We had this section. Your habit of forming new sections (and not sub-sections in particular) arbitrarily and frivolously is why the Zionism page is so fragmented, do not do it here. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait Why should we make the debate easy to follow? That would enable people to see through Mona's excrement filled tirades... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a tried and true way to argue BS. When the debate no longer goes your way abandon and make a new thread/section/discussion (depends on the location) and declare the previous one invalid because....reasons. There's a lot of good examples here. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

" There's a lot of good examples here" Then cite some, and explain where my points are wrong. How are the paragraph I initially cited, and the accompanying footnote, intellectually defensible?---Mona- (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Whom are you quoting and on what? Context, Mona, context. I know you can do it! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Elections in Gaza

I didn't want to get into this because it will be a whole new set of points for the pro-Israel faction to use to misdirect from the article's deficiencies. But the lack of elections in Gaza is not really Hamas' fault, or at least is not as important an issue vis-a-vis Gazan government as many would have one think. Hamas has been willing to explore -- and come close to -- forming a unity government with Fatah, but there is strong evidence the West and Israel have worked to prevent that from occurring. See here and here -- strong evidence suggest Israel wnated the war last summer to prevent the unity government from happening.

Journalist Max Blumenthal spent a lot of time in Gaza, including during the bombardment last summer and has just released a book about it.

Max Blumenthal ends his book by leaving a Gaza that is half destroyed but still defiant. On August 26, the day the final cease-fire took effect, tens of thousands of people filled the streets of Gaza City and pledged to continue the resistance. Blumenthal writes, “Among the crowds, a stout middle-aged woman summoned my colleague Dan Cohen to the van where she sat surrounded with children waving the green Hamas banners. ‘I’ll die and I’ll give [up] all my sons if that’s what we have to do to liberate Palestine,’ she declared vehemently.”

AS Ali Abunimah wrote last summer:

It’s the siege, stupid. Talk to virtually anyone in Gaza and they will tell you the same. The siege is living death, slowly crushing the life out of Gaza. It has to end.

The Gazan people do support resitance to the siege and occupation. Leaving their voice out of this article is just wrong. Doing so in the name of elections is misdirection -- Gazans are not remotely more upset about THAT than they are about the siege.---Mona- (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(Madokadamnit! edit conflict)So no election. Duly noted. Fancy demonstrations and some fanatical crazies on them ain't no replacement for an elected government (btw, did Abuwhatever forget, what fucktons of supplies Israel lets over it's borders alone? The Egyptians, on the other hand, are a "lil" pissed about the Hamas trying to stir up shit in their country on behalf of their mother organization, the Moslem Brotherhood, and built e.g. that thing to curtail it. Can't blame them).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This didn't need an entire new section. I only care you are calling people who are not legitimate elected officials legitimate elected officials, they are the voice of Gaza, but are hardly elected representatives of them.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"I am for democracy if I can hurt Israel by being for it. I am against it if I can hurt Israel with it" - Mindset of any anti-Zionist ever. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"This didn't need an entire new section." Yes it did. Discuss the election issue here and not above where my criticisms of the article have almost nothing to do with that topic. Address THOSE issues. There. Above. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

YES YOUR HIGHNESS!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(le conflict du edit) Mona just a question of general sanity: What do you think does a large rally in favor of an authoritarian regime "prove"? In general, not in this specific case. Let's take the Example of the KMT in Taiwan circa 1985. Or of the fortieth "birthday" of the GDR in 1989... You don't have to answer, I know you won't... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, my post and the links supporting it (which critics of my points in this section should read) speak for me. I will not engage you further on most issues, including this one. I have sufficient experience of you to know your MO is childish insults, misdirection, whataboutery, and any ploy to continue cheerleading for Israel. You are not a good faith interlocutor. ---Mona- (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

First you demand a discussion, then you walk away from the discussion? What the fuck is that shit??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I shall resist the urge to link to this, but the fact that you don't answer my question as to staged rallies in oppressive systems, hints at you actually thinking they mean something. At least in cases where it helps your case "special circumstances" apply. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey now, Mona has done nothing wrong is flawless in this debate.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"First you demand a discussion, then you walk away from the discussion? What the fuck is that shit??" Ever notice how often the word "substantive,or some permutation thereof, is included in my requests for criticism and discussion? There's a reason for that.---Mona- (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well you didn't answer my substantive question. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, aside form being false: "Nah nah nah nah boo-boo. You did it, too!" is chilsish. I'm leaving this page until people begin substantoive discusisons of my criticisms. Bye.---Mona- (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see you getting your way if you reuse to talk to them.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Things to note

• The ones who hold the elections are the Palestinian Legislative Council. Hamas makes a majority, but a good deal have been arrested. Elections haven't been held for a number of reasons.
• 1. Boycott and blockade of the group who won the elections, giving uncertainty as to whether Palestinians could actually vote for people or have it boycotted under pressure by the US/EU.
• 2. "The Palestinian legislative council has been unable to meet and govern since 2007 due to the imprisonment of a significant proportion of its membership[2] and the lack of a quorum.[3]".
• 3. General restrictions (from Wikipedia)
  • Curtailment of the freedom of movement
  • "In the months following the inauguration, members of the PLC (consisting of only Fatah members and moderate non-Fatah members) were subjected to restrictions on their freedom of movement by Israel, as reported by human rights group PCHR. They had to obtain a permit from the Israeli authorities for every single travel, valid for very short periods and sometimes refused.[7][13][14]
  • In 2001, the European Parliament noticed in a resolution that "The Palestinian Legislative Council is more often than not hindered from attending the sessions"[15]

** Isolation from the outer world. Israel prevents official contacts with the outer world. Even the visit of members of the European Parliament to Gaza were denied.[16][17]

• • Israeli interference with the composition of the PLC. Politicians disliked by Israel were, and still are, prevented from political activities, often by arresting them, holding them in detention for lengthy periods and without charge or trial.[18] After the 2006 elections, Israel captured and detained high numbers of PLC members and ministers.[19][20] By selectively capturing and detaining or even killing Hamas members, Israel changed the composition of the PLC significantly.[21][22]
  • Splitting of the Palestinian Government into two entities after the 2007 Fatah–Hamas battle in Gaza. Since the separation, the Palestinian Legislative Council has not convened.[23]
  • Divided views of the Palestinians towards the validity of the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap for peace. This weakens the position of the PLC.

More could be added later. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Very informative Chris. I'd support seeing some of that in the article. I wonder how many of those ranting single-mindedly about elections know and interact with any Gazans? I do. (And other Palestinians.) Not all of them are that thrilled with Hamas, but not a one spends much time handwringing over a fucking lack of elections. No, they are pretty preoccupied with Israel's occupation, siege, and "mowing the grass."---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Silly.

There's a typo

In the mainspace article on Hamas, there is a typo. Can you find it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well unless another mod shows up it will stay here for 2 weeks.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That's why I posted it here on the talk page: I can't fix it, and it is in a sentence I disagree with anyway, so that's that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it that it says "i.e. banning hookahs" instead of "e.g. banning hookahs"? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

No; it's more obvious thean that, but good catch. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"bhis"CorruptUser (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That was what I meant, but if you look in the fossil record, that sentence was most likely a hasty addition by somebody who likes Hamas and didn't care to proofread... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No mere assertions...

...will withstand my edit fingers. Support your controversial claims, or don't add them. Moreover, I'm not going to accept that Ali Abunimah's site is a "rag" or anything else pejorative. He is meticulous about being accurate in his fact claims and seldom fucks that up. That he's a Palestinian-American who supports the Palestinian cause -- and does so very intelligently with copious documentation -- is insufficient reason to reject him as a credible source. Support and documentation people, that's the deal.---Mona- (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Support your claims with something other than a hit-piece with "intifada" (electric or not) in it's name (some uncommented and unverified shock pics from Twitter or shock videos from Youtube or Liveleak won't be well-received here, either) and someone will (probably) start to take you sirius serious.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not spending all day here undoing unsupported and tendentious edits. But if they continue to occur without any reasonable arguments given on this page, and/or lacking credible support, I will occasionally smack them down as time permits.---Mona- (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You will try (draws lightsaber banhammer^{Warning, irony}).

Arisboch, you neither intimidate me nor persuade. Abunimah is a source I've long relied on, as do other reasonable people and outlets, such as the NYT and Democracy Now! I've got his last book and it's crammed with SUPPORTED facts. I'll use him as I see fit, because he is worthy.---Mona- (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Democracy Now!" is an opinion piece masquerading as news and "being relied on by NYC" is too vague (how many times, by whom, was it news, editorial or blog and so on).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And I will succeed. Your record of unreasonable and bad faith negotiation is here to be seen. Support your work and leave my supported work alone unless you can articulate sound and plausible reasons for not doing so. And yes, if you abuse your sysop powers -- Paravant has released this page for us to edit even in "war" or conflict -- I will howl and ask for assistance.---Mona- (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As if I'm the only one to object to your jihad apology.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"As if I'm the only one to object to your jihad apology" That's the "argument" of a cartoon character. you don't appear to care if you become an utter caricature. But in any event, I won't let mere assertions, tendentious ones, stand. That's they way it is going to be. Whether that standard is popular or not is not my concern -- or not in the way you think it should be. If it isn't there is something wrong---Mona- (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I say, as Mona has repeatedly vowed to not engage me in conversation and I don't intend to break her holy vow of silence, to never speak to any filthy Zionists. Anyway as to the actual content of the debate... Citing dubious hit peaces from sources that have "Jihad" or "intifada" in their name - especially if making positive reference to it - is actually worse thaen no source at all. After all, you wouldn't support the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in any footnote, would you? Or Faux Noise for that matter. Not that the two are comparable or in any way similar... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Another good example of why I seldom engage you, Avenger. More straw. I have not decreed I will never engage you -- I stated I seldom will. And I said why. It's the endless litany of fallacies and bad faith arguments. That you object to the name of a web site is duly noted, and irrelevant.---Mona- (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I object to using websites that are biased and lack credibility. In many cases the name is an excellent hint for that. On the issue of Israel the fact that you (or others like you) are using them is another hint still. I hope that clarifies that to those inclined to take Mona's side (I do know that trying to convince Mona is love's labor lost) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

EI is biased, but it does not lack credibility. I do not object to activist journalism, provided said activist journalism is meticulous about support and factual accuracy, and does not hide its bias. Activist journalism has been the rule, not the exception, in some of America's most glorious journalism history.---Mona- (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, even you admitted, that intifada is biased, case closed, moving on to more saner sources of news about the Middle East.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Biased sources are good sources if they say something that goes against their bias. If Fox News says something in favor of socialism (and especially if it is more thaen a token throwaway line) it can absolutely be cited (with special emphasis on the source) in our page on socialism. That's why I searched for (and found) Palestinian critics of Hamas abysmal human rights record, as they cannot be easily accused of being just some "Zionist shill". Quoting a biased source in support of their own stated bias is like quoting the pope on the infallibility of the pope: It adds nothing of value. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, there is no case to "close." Many use activists sources, and I do every time I cite to Greenwald, or Jeremy Scahill, or Max Blumenthal. Zionists do it as well and I don't object provided the source actually documents what it claims and/or is not justifiably known for factual falsehoods and errors. (Izzy Stone was deeply biased, but accurate.) Mere partisanship of a source is not discrediting. You really should learn the history of journalism.---Mona- (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop fangirling about Greenwald and Blumenthal, it's getting tedious.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, in an article about the current face of the Palestinian resistance movement, it is hardly outré to include the views of high profile Palestinians. It may actually be required of intellectual honesty.---Mona- (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What face of the Palestinian resistance movement? Is Khaled Mashal getting off his ass in Qatar and going to Gaza? He'd better have some really good life insurance...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For somebody who "loves death more thaen we love life" Mashal is awfully preoccupied about his own physical well-being... If it is so glorious to be a martyr, why doesn't he lead by example? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Really, just stop. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that was what was predicted and anticipated when the last block was lifted. And of course the prediction came true. As a matter of fact the article is worse now thaen it was before, and even the typo has not been fixed. It should not say "his", it should say "this" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see I've attempted to engage edit warriors on the talk page, and to elicit arguments in support for their decisions. This is not something they generally feel inclined to do. Once the protection is lifted my standards will remain the same: no mere assertions, especially of tendentious claims. Document them, or omit them. Additionally, objecting to a source that has been published and cited approvingly in the NYT -- because one does not like the site's name -- is absurd. I won't cater to it. In the absence of relevant objections I will continue to use the source. Yammering about how I am a "jihadi" or whatever is not good faith and certainly no substitute for documentation and substantive reasons.---Mona- (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So now the New York Times becomes the ultimate antidote for the well? I have not followed the NYT's coverage on Israel in enough depth to make a final judgment, but quite a few usually respectable media outlets have fallen for the worst of the worst Pallywood propaganda from time to time. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, please do not employ deeply offensive ethnic slurs.---Mona- (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake, don't play the offense card. I don't care if you or anybody else is offended. And I can probably find a website for almost any word that claims it is an offensive ethnic slur. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So if I were to declare that "The Jews control Hollywood" you won't object, because I shouldn't care whether you or anyone else is offended, and one can find a web site to say that anything is offensive? Got it.---Mona- (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is offensive or not matters little as the simple fact of the matter is that it is wrong and shows more and more of your true colors that you say something like that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The recent edits

Have made this article worse, not better. What was wrong with my effort to explain Hamas rhetoric for those to gullible or lazy to read between the lines? It should be obvious that a violent antisemitic ethno-supremacist religious nutcase-organization like Hamas will employ a rhetoric that is not what it appears to be on a cursory glance. And if my editorializing on said rhetoric is wrong, thaen why is Mona so afraid of leaving it in there? Of course Mona won't respond, so the more moderate voices on her side can try to explain it, I will be all ears. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The editorialising in the ref tags was shit. Bad style, not funny enough to be snark, too long-winded to be an aside. If there are points to be made along those lines, editorialise in the article proper (with cites, if you're feeling fancy). Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Our mission is to analyze and refute crank ideas, especially religious crank ideas. What if not religious cranks are Hamas? Maybe we could use a "Hamas statements commented" page just like we have for the bible or creationist word vomits Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If that floats your boat, fire one up in its own article. The crankiness or not of Hamas is irrelevant to crappy writing style. If there's crankery that needs to be addressed, do it in the article and cite where you can. Putting it in footnotes comes across as an attempt to smuggle the opinion into the article without bieng prepared to stand behind it and justify it with evidence. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How does one do these side by side things? Like for the commented bible or the likes? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

here--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Queex, I essentially agree with you. The footnotes with unsupported, mere assertions were unacceptable. The lack of sourcing to support some very partisan opinions in whole paragraphs is also not anything intelligent folk should accept.---Mona- (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing partisan about the claim that Hamas' public face differs for the international audience, and it does you no credit to imply that it is. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Paravant. And for the record, I agree with the statement by Queex immediately above me Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Queex, I have not made any implications of the sort you impute to me. But if you feel Hamas acts like every government and political organization ever in maintaining a PR operation -- and think that must be said -- do document it. (I mean, really? The idea that political groups and entities care about their public and international image is news that must be reported or intelligent people might not realize it? pffft)---Mona- (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, cause "every government and political organization eva" goes like sunshine, ponies^{I hereby apologize to any brony on this page for this No I don't, MLP:FIM sucks and is only good as a Youtube Poop source sauce and template for hentai fanart} and vanilla ice cream in English and "KILL THE JUICE CRUSADERS RAFIDA^{the part about the "rafida" (Salafi/Wahabi anti-Shiite slur) is (probably) toned down, when they go collecting money and weapons from Iran or Assad} AND FATAH" in Arabic, right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So Hollande will say vastly different, even opposite things both in word choice and in (perceived) meaning depending on whether he is interviewed by a French union newspaper or by American cable news? really? Are you fookin' serious? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Many observed last summer that Israel was counseling calm and carrying on as usual in domestic journalistic outlets, while simultaneously projecting hysteria about rockets to the world. This is a shock?---Mona- (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, cause continuing one's daily life in spite of Hamas or whatever firing rockets and warning, that rockets with coupla kilos of explosives fired at civilian sectors or Israel are sorta health risk are totally a contradiction, right? *warning, sarcasm*--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Yeah, cause continuing one's daily life in spite of Hamas or whatever." Tipping the sushi boy, Arsiboch. And going to the beach and having fun. Needless to say, that's not what they were concerned with in Gaza. But when getting on TeeVeee for international audiences, the TERROR OF TEH ROCKETS was the only line available. And? this should surprise no one. It's called PR. Now, I'm leaving this page for a bit, possibly for the day. Bye.---Mona- (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, Mona there is a rather quite popular image that was coined during the bombing of Britain by Nazi forces that read "keep calm and carry on". Britain was in a situation not unlike Israel when being fired upon by Hamas: it was bombarded by an enemy with no regard for human or civilian live, yet normal live had to go on somehow. That's where this image comes in. Of course back in those days the valiant fight of the Royal Air Force was on any news that mattered any way, so there was no need to remind people that there is a war going on after all. In essence that is what the diverse free Israeli press is doing: Reminding the world that a war is going on and Israel is permanently hit with rockets on the one hand, while on the other hand trying to avoid domestic chaos. But I am sure this is just logical fallacy whataboutism in Mona-land... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Queex, I have not made any implications of the sort you impute to me." Then why the smeg did you keep trying to remove the paragraph discussing those different PR faces? And imply that it was one of those "very partisan opinions in whole paragraphs" in the discussion above? You're either very bad at communicating or being a little dishonest, here. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Not in the least dishonest. Because every political group and country does what that paragraph -- at great and over-labored length --accuses Hamas of doing, it is gratuitous and tendentious. That same paragraph could easily be tweaked to be discussing Israel instead of Hamas. I guaran-dam-tee you that if I added such a thing to any article pertaining to Israel the usual suspects would have a meltdown.---Mona- (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, tu quoque, how I've missed you. I guara-damn-tee you that the extent of the difference is larger than usual in this case, even than that of propaganda from countries at war, because of the simple reason that goal of the PR is so very different for the two audiences. Even Israel has an interest in presenting 'we're showing restraint, but their assaults are forcing our hand' both domestically and internationally. Whereas Hamas needs to whip their supporters into a frenzy to keep the extremists behind them politically while playing the affronted victim card internationally. Whether they themselves are truly the former, the latter or something in between doesn't change that hypocrisy. So pointing that out is definitely justified in an article on Hamas. And even if you thought that section was too long and stilted, it would have been better to rewrite and compact it. Removing it, even in the face of reversion, is not the action of a competent editor who dislikes it for inaccuracy. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 09:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You do not understand tu quoque if that's what you think I was doing. I am not arguing: "It is false for A to claim B does X because A does X as well." No, I'm saying you are defending a standard that is otherwise virtually never otherwise applied and doing so in a specific instance without any valid or supported reason for doing so. It may be true that Hamas peddles distinct messages for domestic consumption. But if it is, that makes them like every other governing entity in human history. And if you think Israel does not ALSO say things to "whip up their extremists," well, you simply are not paying attention. And if I tried to include that and point out it led to a teen Arab boy being burned alive, suddenly this standard for what merits inclusion would evaporate. Moreover, like most of this article, the paragraph I edited out is sourceless; someone's opinion. Find some credible support that Hamas engages in this common activity to some deeply unusual and nefarious extent. If that can't be found, it stays out.---Mona- (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Why should I believe what Der Stürmer electronic Intifada has to say about Israel? If what they claim is true, surely there are other sources as well... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ali Abunimah is a very smart and conscientious journalist. His site is reputed to be careful with facts and to demand accuracy. The facts he reports here are true and can be verified with teh great god google. Get used to seeing that site cited because I will be doing that with some regularity. Finally, I no longer reply to you for the purpose of promoting exchange between us. I reply, when I do, for the benefit of others.---Mona- (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

now that7 is a cute escape hatch!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why should anybody do your work for you to see whether the real world agrees with your nutty nuts filled with Nutella "sources"? Last time I checked this place places the burden of proof on somebody making an assertion. Saying "I doubt someone with Intifada in their name if they make negative claims about Israel" is really not at all unreasonable... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

INTIFADA It's merely an Arabic word that translates into English as: uprising, resistance, or rebellion. Arab intifada's have occurred in many countries other than Israel, many of them Arab countries. "It is often used as a term for popular resistance to oppression." Objection to a source because that common term is in its name is absurd.---Mona- (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

CRUSADE

It's merely an English word that means a struggle commanded by god, virtually identical to "jihad". But it has taken on a rather specific meaning in the Arabic world, one that if I were to say "I'm launching a Crusade for social justice" to some Arabs, would not endear me to them. At all. CorruptUser (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, which is why Arabs need to take care about how they use the word "jihad" around Westerners. The site under discussion, however, is not named "Electronic Jihad." As I said, an intifda is a terms used for popular resistance to oppression, like the English words uprising, resistance or rebellion. Which is among the reasons it is so vacuous to refuse to credit a site simply because it contains that word in its name. But if you disagree, what Arab word meaning "uprising, resistance or rebellion" would be acceptable? Any?

About the link to the RW Godwin article embedded in a speech. If that remains, I intend to footnote it pointing out that the entry applies, per the article, to "online discussion," and also that (as is now reflected on that page) Mike Godwin himself has ratified that his law was never meant to preclude substantive invocations of Hitler or Nazis. Finally, the invocation is also to Italian fascists, about which Mike Godwin is not known to have said anything. I suggest, therefore, removing that embed in the Hamas guy's speech or, as I said, I will append a footnote as indicated.---Mona- (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't fool anyone here with your etymology-wank..--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, ok. Sure thing. Whatever that means, and etc. ---Mona- (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The site is named "Electronic INTIFADA". That has the same damn meaning in the English world as "Electronic Jihad". CorruptUser (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So you really believe these things would have the same meaning in English if they were called "First Jihad" and "Second Jihad"? I'm not sure in what universe "intifada" is equally stigmatized a term as "jihad", but I'm pretty sure it ain't this one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

The 2005 French riots were also known as the "French Intifada". CorruptUser (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"French riots were also known as" Yes, riots are often involved in uprisings, resistance or rebellions. Or, and again, is there some other Arab word you feel should be used when Arabs mean to communicate "uprising, resistance or rebellion?" Also again, it is silly, and petty, to refuse to consider a source merely because it has the word "intifada" in its name. And get used to it -- because I will source with EI somewhat frequently and will expect substantive objections if you don't like it, and not this petulant bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A source that contains the word "intifada" is likely to be biased in favor of perpetrators of Palestinian political violence. Not the kind of source we want to be citing in an article on Hamas or similar groups of bastards Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In which case, we can't cite Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir, both of whom were justly on Mandate Palestine wanted posters for terrorism. We can't cite the Israeli people who elected them both prime minister. Nor can we cite to the African National Congress. Or for that matter the State of Israel and its officials who are promoting and allowing this. (Former directors of Shin Bet are, I hope, acceptable sources even to you?) But let's get real: Ali Abunimah's site has committed no violence whatsoever and is reputed to be meticulous about facts. It practices a good deal of excellent long-form journalism. The relevant issue is this: Is it generally accurate in its fact claims. The answer is: "Yes it is." That's the only kind of source I use, and I assure you, the are are some I avoid whose viewpoint I find congenial, but they are not as reliable as I require.---Mona- (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Sites" can not commit violence, only people can.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you know their facts are sound? Probably because you can compare it with some other, more accurate source. Well thaen, why not just use that one? And if that source is not called electronic intifada, but rather "electronic jihad", you may be comparing propaganda with propaganda. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I know their facts are sound because an Internet full of Zionists pores over their every sentence seeking find something to make it look bad. Ali Abunimah knows this, and for that and other reasons he is anal about getting the facts correct. In some three years of extensive online sparring with Zionists I have not found even one able to demonstrate that EI has a reputation for unreliability. And, since I find it to be a trove of trustworthy information, I fully intend to continue reading it and citing to it.---Mona- (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas destroy house

Sea romania wikipedia https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas^{— Unsigned, by: 5.254.97.95 / talk / contribs}

No-one here speaks Romanian.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Any fact that disparages a person or organization..."

Rational Wiki Manual of Style, enlarged passage my emphasis:

Any fact should be referenced. This doesn't mean "delete all unreferenced statements", it means to at least be prepared to do some homework and back up our assertions. Any fact that disparages a person or organization should be referenced as soon as possible.

And I intend to see that this is upheld in most articles I edit. It's not only in the style manual, it is what intelligent adults demand of both themselves and of others.---Mona- (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In 2015 A.D., edit war was beginning...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

....and all your base belong to us (or was it them)... or something.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"In 2015 A.D., edit war was beginning" Verily I say unto thee, it came to pass because someone did locate the style manual and found that, lo, it is necessary to credibly source especially when asserting derogatory information. And there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth from Zionists....---Mona- (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What meme is that, you damn n00b??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Source for Hamas doublespeak

Just see this book Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Or any goddamn translation of al-Aqsa TV.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's all seems to be all about Abbas and the PA. What do you have about Hamas? Something itself sourced with verifiable examples of egregious double-talking -- BY HAMAS. ---Mona- (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Or any goddamn translation of al-Aqsa TV" Where are these copious translations that support the paragraph you seek to retain?--Mona- (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you accept MEMRI as a source? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I accept MEMRI if it provides documented claims. Not it's own analysis that cannot be checked. My experience with it's accuracy has not been good---Mona- (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of what they do are translations / subtitulations from Arabic / Persian or other languages into English. Do you claim to know any of those languages better thaen the experts in the employ of MEMRI? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Does MEMRI show that an unusually large quantity of domestic statements by Hamas varies from those it makes to the world, that is, in a manner greatly exceeding other political groups, including nation-states?---Mona- (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider MEMRI a reliable source since it was founded by former Israeli military intelligence officer Yigal Carmon who has a self-serving stake in the matter and would hardly be considered impartial. It'd be as reliable and impartial as citing from the Hamas Foreign Affairs page. That, and MEMRI has a history of taking statements out of context to ostracize people it doesn't like, such as taking Norman Finkelstein's statements out of context to portray him as a Holocaust denier despite the fact he is the child of Holocaust survivors. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. MEMRI is a highly biased source, and anything they publish must be taken with a great big serving of salt. Blacke (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Chris and Blacke. It just didn't seem necessary to impugn the source at this time since Avenger wasn't even claiming it supported that Hamas does this particular bad act to some egregiously greater degree than is normal in the politics of humankind. Indeed, I could live with his version (if properly sourced) if I could add the observation that it is not to say Hamas does this to some unusual degree.---Mona- (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, even if for argument's sake we accept that Hamas engages in doublespeak, what about their actions? Well, over the past decade, the apologetic Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (made up of IDF soldiers) have conceded themselves that Hamas actually does not fire rockets from Gaza in order to start a conflict and actually uses police forces to suppress rocket fire of Islamists or other Salafi groups. They even concede that Hamas often "retaliates" when Israel launches a provocative raid (as they did on November 4 that broke a five month ceasefire) or an assassination. So I see no need to quibble over Hamas' alleged intent to not follow through with diplomatic processes when their actions over the past decade more or less back up a willingness to enter diplomacy. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Chris, you seem to have the data on this point and I would support either removing or significantly editing the paragraph under discussion to include your information. ---Mona- (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

For sources to back up what I said above, this is from Finkelstein's This Time We Went Too Far during the 2008 ceasefire that was broken by Israel's raid on November 4

"Hamas was 'careful to maintain the ceasefire,' an official Israeli publication reported, despite Israel’s reneging on the crucial quid pro quo that it substantially lift the economic blockade of Gaza. 'The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations,' the Israeli source continued. 'At the same time, the [Hamas] movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it'" (47-8). The source of info is: Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement (December 2008). Of note, after the raid of November 4 when Hamas launched rockets soonafter, the ITIC acknowledged that they were launched "in retaliation." The source is as follows and the quotes cited can be found under paragraph 4: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/18366 ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Once protection is lifted if you don't have time to edit that in I will do it.---Mona- (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Godwin and Hamas "dual statements"

We've been thru this above ad nauseaum. Godwin applies to ONLINE statements (per RW's own entry), and not to Italy at all. Moreover, Mike Godwin himself has said he does not mean to foreclose substantive comparisons of Nazis. The Hamas guy's statement was a political speech, not a post online -- Godwin doesn't apply. Moreover, he was serious. It's wrong to undermine the man's speech with an unjustified embedded link to Godwin.

As for the paragraph about Hamas saying one thinng domestically and another for international consummation. If Hamas does that, (and it's not documented) SO DOES ISRAEL. We've been all through this. Document that Hamas does this to some distinctive and especially egregious degree, or it's not acceptable. There is no sourcing at all in that graf, FFS.---Mona- (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of Godwin applying only to online statements. Quite sure I've seen it come up in meatscape. As for "not to Italy", well then, you could fix that by editing the link to only cover Germany without deleting it entirely, now couldn't you?

"If Hamas does that, so does Israel". Isn't that argument "Whataboutism"? CorruptUser (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Whataboutery is a fallacy meant to keep one from admitting the truth of the bad acts of X by saying Y does it too. That's not my purpose here. My point is about standards. If we all don't note this particular (and ubiquitous) bad act for A,B,C,X,Y, and Z, why do so for Hamas? Unless, of course, they do this bad act to some extreme degree warranting special attention -- where is the documentation supporting that? As for Godwin, from the RW article: "With the increase in the number of media for online discussion, Godwin's Law is now applied to any online discussion — be they mailing lists, message boards, forums, chat rooms, blog comment threads, or wiki talk pages." Again, why apply it to a Hamas speech, unless all invocations of fascist racism made by the world's politicians in speeches are now going to get Godwin embeds at RW? (Or would it be okay if I added a footnote from an Israeli official who has publicly agreed Zionism is racist and fascist, and who thinks Hitler was clever? I have that source, from Haaretz, so I can add it, if that would be preferable to dropping the Godwin embed. Let me know.)---Mona- (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)