Talk:Hamas

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Auschwitz

Why should their statement mentioning Auschwitz be in the antisemitism section? The Jpost article used as the source never mentions antisemitism [1] so it's WP:OR to put it there. Alaexis_¿question? 14:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It should be there as it is directly relevant to the section on antisemitism, which includes the claim that Hamas denies the Holocaust, so the RS statement that they do not deny the Holocaust but acknowledge it is a direct response that allegation which is in line with the purpose of that paragraph. The claim that acknowledging the Holocaust and Auschwitz concentration camp as being unrelated to accusations of Holocaust denialism and so it woud be OR to include is not serious. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This is improper synthesis. It's your own conclusion which is not backed by any RS.

Please provide sources that link this statement to Hamas's antisemitism. Alaexis_¿question? 16:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The recognition of Auschwitz' role in the Holocaust being a recognition of it is not improper synthesis, and it directly addresses the claim in the section of Hamas' alleged Holocaust denialism. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I've asked for a third opinion at the relevant noticeboard. Alaexis_¿question? 19:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

By that logic every WP article is improper synthesis as no one RS has written the whole article in one place AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the quote belongs in that section but disagree with Raskolnikiv.Rev’s interpretation of it. The section deals with their attitude to the Holocaust and Auschwitz is obviously part of the Holocaust. In my view, the comparison made in the quote is Holocaust relativisation not Holocaust acknowledgement. (Many

Holocaust deniers say things like “the Holocaust didn’t happen and what the Jews are doing is the real Holocaust”.) We rightly don’t give either interpretation though, but simply report the quote. I think it’s fine as it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

2017 charter and antisemitism

Our current text, in the section on antisemitism, says the 2017 charter “condemn[s] antisemitism and the persecution of the Jews”. The two sources cited for this aren’t online so I can’t see what they actually say. What the charter actually says is “Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage.” That’s not a condemnation of antisemitism, just of persecution in general, along with a denial of antisemitism. If the two sources opine that this is a condemnation of antisemitism, we should attribute their opinions as our words are evidently not an accurate summary of the charter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

You are correct, the sources also do not say this, they quote from the charter and say they remove the antisemitic language which we already note in the first part of the sentence, while quoting the other parts you cite from it. I believe we should also follow the text of the charter, and include a citation of that.

This seems like a good alternative: "Hamas' 2017 charter removed the antisemitic language of the original, stating that their struggle is against Zionism and not Jews, while rejecting persecution or denial of rights of any human being on nationalist, religious, or sectarian grounds. It also says that the Jewish question, antisemitism, and the persecution of Jews stem from European history rather than Arab or Muslim heritage, while advancing goals for a Palestinian state that many see as consistent with a two-state solution."

If that looks good to you we can proceed with that fix. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Good with me BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Have updated it now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Section placing: Allegations of antisemitism

The sub-section “Allegations of antisemitism” is in a section called “Policies towards Israel and Palestine”, but antisemitism isn’t a policy towards Israel and Palestine. Should the sub-section move, or the section be retitled? BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is out of place there. It belongs in the Hamas Criticism section, and I support moving it there. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. Alaexis_¿question? 12:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Moved there now. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2025

Hamas is a terrorist organization. And it is written as a not terrorist organization. Please change 2A06:C701:4E55:8B00:8414:D5B7:C098:973E (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article does not say that Hamas is "a not terrorist organization". For the relevant Wikipedia guideline on this subject, please see MOS:LABEL. Day Creature (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Link of the Hamas website

Link of the Hamas website since the current one is broken https://almoqawma.com/ Klortene (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Recent history section additions do not match cited sources

@NHCLS, you recently edited the History section and added content as shown in these two edits: 1, 2

For this content:

"In December 1987, following the outbreak of the First Intifada, the Brotherhood restructured itself into Hamas, adopting a more nationalist line and beginning a campaign of terrorism against Israel."

You cited Filiu 2012, p. 66.

Can you please say what on that page confirms what you cited it for? Filiu does not use the term "terrorism" once in his article, and on that page says it joined the "resistance" against Israel but only hesitantly after keeping a low profile:

"The outbreak of riots in the Gaza Strip on 9 December 1987, which quickly spread to the West Bank and came to be known as the first intifada, was as much a surprise to the Muslim Brotherhood as to the PLO. The Islamist leadership was tempted to keep a low profile, and it was ultimately Shaykh Yasin who imposed on his divided followers his decision to participate in the uprising against Israel.66 This break with the past became concrete with the formal creation, on 14 December, of Hamas, dedicated to “Islamic resistance.” Still, two more months would pass before this acronym was officially recognized, and eight months before a Hamas charter was adopted.67"

You also cited Filiu for this, this time not citing a page:

"Aiming to Islamisise Gazan society, it built a rapidly-expanding network of mosques and charitable instutions offering basic social services and education, seized control of the Islamic University of Gaza, where it enforced an ultra-conservative social code, and promoted strict Islamist conservative norms, including encouraging women to veil, pressuring restaurants to stop selling alcohol, and vandalising offices of left-wing organisations such as the Palestine Red Crescent Society."

Where in Filiu did you find a reference to "encouraging women to veil" and "pressuring restaurants to stop selling alcohol"? I can not find a single mention of "veil" or "women" in the article, nor anything about pressuring restaurants to stop selling alcohol. I also cannot find any reference to "ultra-conservative social code" and "strict Islamist conservative norms".

Please cite the pages for this.

A second source you cited for this content is Roy, Sara. Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza : Engaging the Islamist Social Sector, Princeton University Press, 2011. Page 93.

This is perhaps even worse: Roy states the exact opposite of what you cited her for on that page. She says Hamas was a pragmatic flexible organization instead of dogmatic.

Where in Roy does she state what you cited her for?

For this content: "During the 1990s and early 2000s, the organization conducted numerous suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis."

You cite Kimmerling, Baruch (2009). The Palestinian People: A History. Harvard University Press. p. 372. ISBN 9780674039599.

I checked the book, and on that page Kimmerling discusses a cycle of violence with Hamas attacks and harsh Israeli reactions undermining support for Oslo among Palestinians, and he noted Hamas suspended suicide bombings for most of 1995. There is no reference to "during the 1990s and early 2000s". Can you please let me know where you got that time frame from? Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Sources for enforcing conservative norms:

• Filiu 2012 (The Origins of Hamas: Militant Legacy or Israeli Tool?) Page 65: "ransacking the Red Crescent offices before moving on to cafés, cinemas, and drinking establishments in the town center... The following years were replete with similar incidents involving Shaykh Yasin’s supporters assaulting Palestinian adversaries labeled as communists... the all-out struggle between the two movements for control of Gaza’s Islamic University, established in 1978 and the only institution of higher learning in the Strip at the time. In January 1983, the “Islamic Bloc,” a Mujamma offshoot, won 51 percent of the vote in student elections, allowing it to impose its law on campus" then Page 66: "starting in 1986, Yasin decided to endow his organization with its own security apparatus, the Majd, which performed the dual function of protecting Islamist networks (against Israel and other factions) and suppressing social deviance (drugs, prostitution, etc.). Thus, even within the Brotherhood’s first armed branch in Gaza, the priority remained the enemy within"
• Roy 2013 (Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza : Engaging the Islamist Social Sector) Page 74: "The Islamists also attacked what they considered to be immoral behavior at the societal level, which included alcohol and drug use, prostitution, pornography, and activities that young men and women participated in together. Weddings and appropriate behavior seemed to be a focus of attention as well.'” Violence was sometimes used to impose Islamic norms. I remember that during my first visit to Gaza City in 1985, I was shown its only cinema, long closed, which the Islamists had attacked years before." and Page 77: "By the outbreak of the first uprising, there was palpable evidence— both positive and negative—of the MB’s social program, especially in Gaza: an institutionalized social infrastructure that reached into most areas of the territory; a welfare system that addressed the poorest (refugee and nonrefugee) segments of Gazan society; the tripling and near doubling of the number of mosques in Gaza and the West Bank respectively between 1967 and 1987; control of the Islamic University in Gaza and the Brotherhood’s presence in student councils in other universities; the closing of cinemas and restaurants selling alcohol; increased donning of Islamic over Western dress; and violent attacks on nationalist institutions"
• You can also look at Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement by Beverley Milton-Edwards & Stephen Farrell (2010) on Page 44: "By the early 1980s, the Mujamma had acquired a reputation for campaigning against the PLO and the institutions that supported it, not against the Israelis. Local healthcare institutions, universities, and professional associations and other movements which traditionally bore alleigiance to the PLO and its leftist factions were targeted by the Mujamma and such places quickly became battlegrounds... After Friday prayers, burning torches were held aloft as Mujamma thugs set fire to libraries, newspaper offices, billiard halls and bars. They burned cinemas and cafés, closed liquor stores, and ran intimidation campaigns in the community and on the university campus." and then on Page 45:"But it was relatively easy for the Mujamma to establish a monopoly of power at the neighbouring Islamic University of Gaza (IUG). The ways in which the university would become Islamic were soon apparent; segregation between men and women was enforced throughout the university, in its classrooms, cafés, libary and campus areas. Strict Islamic dress codes were introduced for men and women. Opponents of the Mujamma accused it of suppressing political diversity through a climate of fear. Nationalist students and lecturers were regularly targeted for humilitation by their fellow students, the university administration, and even the university's doormen and guards, who were bearded Mujamma members with a reputation for meteing out violent beatings to dissenters... It also became common knowledge that the Mujamma had a cache of crude weapons at the university that it used in its attacks against the secularists and nationalists."
• You can also look at The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence, and Coexistence by Shaul Mishal & Avraham Sela (2006) on Page 23: "Violence was built into the movement's worldview from its very inception. Like other Islamic movements, the Mujamma employed violence to impose Islamic norms on the population, particularly to prevent the consumption of alcohol and to ensure women's modesty." NHCLS (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As for the sentence cited to Kimmerling, that was not me who added it - it was already there before my edits. But I believe it to be accurate anyways, and would be happy to look for additional sources if you think it's necessary. NHCLS (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

For example, keeping with Roy 2013 (Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza : Engaging the Islamist Social Sector):

• Page 4: "there can be no doubt that since its inception in 1987, Hamas has engaged in violence, armed struggle, and terrorism as the primary force behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel"
• Page 25: "According to Ismail Abu Shanab, a cofounder of Hamas, “The period 1983 to 1987 marked the phase of direct preparation for resistance to the occupation, including armed struggle. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin took the lead in this, and did so independently of the Muslim Brotherhood.”... The inclusion of armed resistance in their strategy indicated a radical shift in their ideology and practice, from reformism to militarism.*° By the time the first Intifada erupted just a short while later, the constant tension between armed struggle and social reform had finally been resolved: both objectives could be achieved simultaneously. But with the formation of Hamas in December 1987, which eventually took over the institutions of the Muslim Brotherhood, political action and armed confrontation clearly became dominant, representing not a break with, but a reorganization of, the Brotherhood, which effectively was subsumed to Hamas." NHCLS (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for that, but note that none of the sources and pages you have cited here now were cited for the content you added, and certain specific claims you made are not in them. There is another problem too. I read the Filiu, Roy, Mishal and Milton-Edwards and you are citing them out of context for parts of the content you added. For example your Roy page 4 quote is cut off to remove its important context that fundamentally alters its meaning and directly contradicts what you are citing it for:

  "While there can be no doubt that since its inception in 1987, Hamas has engaged in violence, armed struggle, and terrorism as the primary force behind the horrific suicide bombings inside Israel, it is also a broadbased movement that has evolved into an increasingly complex, varied, and sophisticated organization engaged in a variety of societal activities vital to Palestinian life. Hamas’s evolution has been most dramatic with regard to its ideology, organizational structure, role in Palestinian society, and perceived goals—its limitations notwithstanding. This study seeks to challenge the conventional frame of reference that defines Hamas only as a terrorist organization. Here, I pursue a more nuanced view of Palestinian Islamism that deliberately seeks to reinterpret its dynamics, challenging the accepted assumption that all Islamic institutions are parts of a larger terrorist infrastructure and that the people who use them are passive victims of religious fanaticism joined in a desire to inflict harm." Roy page 4.

  I will write a more detailed response with all the context from the other sources you also left out soon, and propose a version for discussion on that basis, and hopefully we can build consensus from that. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2025

Remove the military commander in the infobox, as Hamas is the political party, not the military wing. Da badass west (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. As this change is potentially controversial, a consensus will be required first. Day Creature (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)