DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Hamas

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Edit request 16 December 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change:


Diff:

Flagman34 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC) request removing the sentence "the israeli occupied" from the intro of the page due to the Gaza Strip not being under Israeli occupation (apart from was such in 2014 and 2023 onwards) since 2005[reply]

 Not done: As this edit request is potentially controversial, a consensus will be required first. See our article Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip for the differing views on whether Israel continued to militarily occupy Gaza after 2005. Day Creature (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: As you seem to agree, the Gaza Strip is currently Israeli-occupied, so it doesn't make sense to remove the phrase. Overall, that sentence doesn't imply that Gaza has been occupied since 2007, only that Hamas has governed Gaza since 2007 and that Gaza is currently Israeli-occupied. TimSmit (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about ‘acceptance of the 1967 borders’: is our lead statement correct?

[edit]

Recently, there have been disagreements (edits and reverts) as to whether the lead sentence: “It began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005,…”, is correct or should be changed. The latest talk discussion seemed to stall with two people for option A (see below) and two for option B. The issue is complex because it involves: (a) Citations of experts which might be understood differently; (b) Our paraphrasing of those citations that might be correct, incorrect, or too vague; (c) Grammatical interdependence between the chosen paraphrasing and the rest of the Wikipedia context. Corriebertus (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read our previous RfC (Nov.2023) about ‘accepting the 1967 borders’, which concluded that “Hamas accepts the 1967 borders”, but not how that should be phrased in the article or what it does or does not implicate; and which also concluded that “the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution"” but not by whom or since which date or how the term “two-state solution” should be read (it is a vague term, currently(Dec.2025) Wikipedia does not present any concrete or authoritative definition of it).

Please, choose option #A, #B or #C:

  • #A: Reliable Source (RS) on topic Hamas, Leila Seurat, when speaking (in her 2019 book, page 17)[1] of Hamas’s “acceptance of the 1967 borders… [in] agreements… since 2005…” (and other RS with similar statements) mean to say that Hamas in such agreements has abandoned their ambition to create an Islamic state in all of former Mandatory Palestine.
    That is why Wikipedia in the lead section of Hamas clearly asserts, referring to those quotes of Seurat, Baconi and Roy, that since 2005 Hamas has abandoned their quest for that larger state (“acquiescing to .. 2005 .. ” as new Hamas position opposed to their “initially...” goal). Asserting in Wikipedia that Hamas since 2005 retains its long-term objective would then imply that Hamas’s acceptance of the 1967 borders in 2005 is invalidated or insincere; and attributing that false implication of insincerity to Leila Seurat (and other RS)—by suggesting that, according to Seurat (and others), Hamas retained that larger goal in 2005—would be misrepresenting Seurat (and others). (This is the explanation for the lead sentence “It began acquiescing…” as given by editor @Smallangryplanet: on 22Nov2025 and fully endorsed by @Raskolnikov.Rev: on 22 and 24 Nov2025.)
  • #B: Reliable Source Seurat, in her book of 2019 on pages 14-16,[1] speaks of a Hamas doctrine since the early 1990s consisting of a ‘short-term policy’ and a ‘long-term solution’ (p.15)(also described as ‘historical’); The short-term tactics aim at creating an authority on a specific territory, as the start to fulfil the strategic (long-term) goal: Islamic sovereignty over all of Palestine; In that light (p.16), some Hamas leaders since the 1990s were not opposed to negotiations with Israel for a long-lasting truce. Rather suddenly on page 17,[1] Seurat writes that “since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders (…) [which was] integral part of (…) the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners’ Document in 2006, [etc.]”. She does not explicitly say that this “acceptance” means abandoning Hamas’s long-term strategic goal or its ‘double doctrine’ she describes on page 14. The next time Seurat mentions that 2006 Prisoners’ Document, on page 47,[1] she writes that it “implicitly recognized the validity of the June 1967 borders” and that for most Hamas leaders this “did not diminish by any means the validity and legitimacy of its historical strategy (…) contrary to (…) Fatah, for whom the building of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders constitutes the ultimate goal”. Therefore, we would do source Seurat no justice, by paraphrasing her words (‘acceptance’, ‘validity’, etc.) as if they imply Hamas’s abandoning of their long-term goal around 2005/2006/2007. But also the citations of Baconi and Roy in our lead section do not speak of abandoning that long-term goal. (People who would point at Roy’s mention of “two-state solution” (tss) to prove the opposite, make one mistake: we have no guarantee that Roy uses the term ‘tss’ in the sense of giving up the larger goal.) Therefore, our lead sentence: “It began…”, makes unjust attributions to those 3 authors and must be replaced (or removed). Ofcourse there are thousand options for a replacing sentence (or even to remove and not replace it), and I’ll gladly give my proposal for a better one, but one option is, to say here, that since 2005, in agreements with Fatah, Hamas has accepted the idea of creating a Palestinian state on the June 1967 borders. (P.S. Smp and Rsk will tell you, that I consider Seurat a propagandist, and that I’m framing Hamas as unreliable. That first thing has indeed been my suspicion of Seurat, which I take back now. Framing Hamas is not my purpose in this RfC, but correctly presenting what RS say of Hamas.)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Seurat 2019, pp. 14–17, 47: "[p.14] Since the early 1990s, Hamas began to formulate its foreign policy discourse in a way very different from the binary vision of the Charter. (…) At the heart of this new doctrine is a distinction between ‘short-term policy’ and the ‘long-term solution’. The former, often described as an ‘interim’ solution, was put forward for the first time in 1988 by Mahmoud al-Zahar (…) [p.15](…) The latter solution, also decribed as ‘historical’, emphasizes the sacred aspect of Palestine as a waqf (…) This dialectics between tactics (short term) and strategy (long term) is present in an informal manner in many documents and articles written by figures affiliated to Hamas. The aim is to create on a specific territory (buq‘a) an authority (Sulta) … [as] the start of the fulfilment of Hamas’ strategic goals: … the re-establishment of Islamic sovereignty over all of Palestine. The concept of truce (hudna) (…) permits implementing the short-term solution without discarding the historical one (…) [p.16]Simultaneously, some leaders consider that, in case Hamas gathers sufficient forces for real negotiations and upon the condition that Israelis accept concessions to Palestinian people, they are not opposed to the principle of negotiation for a long-lasting truce (hudna tawîla). (…) [p.17](…) Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas and Fatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners' Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012. (…) [p.47](…) Hamas signed, together with other Palestinian factions, the Prisoners’ Document (…) This text implicitly recognized the validity of the June 1967 borders (…) However, most of Hamas’ leaders tried to minimize the importance of these pragmatic declarations; (…) they did not diminish by any means the validity and legitimacy of its historical strategy. (…) This policy would be contrary to that of Fatah, for whom the building of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders constitutes the ultimate goal"

Corriebertus (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 29 December 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Add the note that Hamas was the first Islamist movement in the Arab world to win an election.

This just provides more context to their election victory in 2006 and is a reasonably important moment in Islamist politics within the region.


Diff:

−
In the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Hamas secured a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council by campaigning on promises of a corruption-free government and advocating for resistance as a means to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation.[35][36]
+
In the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Hamas secured a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council by campaigning on promises of a corruption-free government and advocating for resistance as a means to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation.[35][36] This marked the first time that an Islamist party had won an election in the Arab world. [1]

KurdistanNerd (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘Islamism’ is a rather vague thing: “…movements that believe that Islam should influence political systems”, says Wikipedia, on the authority of the Cambridge dictionary. I have no doubt that scholars and experts (like mr. Brenner whom you cite) follow their own, wider or narrower, definitions of Islamism. So, what I’m curious about, is: why specifically would you wish to have this remark, coming from Brenner, added in the lead section of Hamas? --Corriebertus (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Islamism as a broad ideology is seen as one of the defining political movements in the region and key to understnading its politics. Hamas victory marked the first time any Islamist group successfully won free elections in the Arab world and just as importantly the first time a Muslim Brotherhood branch won elections. The Muslim Brotherhood itself is one of the key political actors in the region and at the time how Hamas goverened and acted was seen as infleuncing how we should view the Muslim Brotherhood (Schanzer, J. 2009. The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood.). Following the election multiple different scholars and comentators were talking about Islamist movements watching how Hamas goverened and the challenges the group would face so as to learn from the group (Schanzer, J. 2009. The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood. and Zweiri, M. 2006. The Hamas victory: shifting sands or major earthquake? Third world quarterly. 27(4), pp.675–687.), this made Hamas the bedrock of how we viewed Islamist goverence, outside Iran, until the Arab Spring and the rise of more Islamist governments.
I believe that this makes the election and Hamas' victory an important momement in Middle Eastern and Islamist history.
Not sure if this is formatted correctly, if not sorry. KurdistanNerd (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have an inkling or feeling (which I can’t prove right now) that labels like Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism are overrated in political studies. Hamas is not only very unique in the world (in many respects), it can, probably, very well be understood by just studying the Palestinian history, without dragging “ideologies” like Islamism or Muslim Brotherhood into the analysis. If mr/mrs KurdistanNerd is of different opinion, I would advice him, to not first change the lead section but to first devise a (sub)section in which he elaborately argues (referring to his sources like Schanzer, Zweiri, Gunning, Brenner, etc. etc.) why a concept like ‘Islamism’ is helpful for understanding Hamas. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How do you devise a subsection? KurdistanNerd (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against this. It is at most an opinion that is not a consensus among scholars. One reason that many do not regard Hamas as Islamist is that they never established Sharia as the law of Gaza despite years of opportunity. Zerotalk 11:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although today there is debate around Hamas status as an Islamist group today and specifically the level of importance Islam plays within Hamas today, in 2006 Hamas both considered itself an Islamist group (the Hamas charter in place at the time and Gunning, J. 2023. Hamas in Politics : Democracy, Religion, Violence [Online]. Hurst Publishers. page 161) and it did run on a platform that included introducing Sharia law into Palestinian law (Berti, B. 2015. Non-State Actors as Providers of Governance: The Hamas Government in Gaza between Effective Sovereignty, Centralized Authority, and Resistance. The Middle East journal. 69(1), pp.9–31. (page 27) and Brenner, B 2016. Gaza Under Hamas : From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance [Online]. Bloomsbury Publishing. (page 191)). Furthermore, Hamas has implemented elements of Sharia law and enaged in Islamisation policies in Gaza (Brenner, B 2016. Gaza Under Hamas : From Islamic Democracy to Islamist Governance [Online]. Bloomsbury Publishing. and Schanzer, J. 2009. The Talibanization of Gaza: A Liability for the Muslim Brotherhood.) KurdistanNerd (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See my remark, some 20 lines higher, same time stamp. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Closing the edit request as multiple editors have expressed opposition to the proposed change. Day Creature (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing three citations (Seurat etc.)

[edit]

@Alaexis: Recently (21Nov2025), I’ve made an edit to the lead sentence about “acquiescing to 1967 borders”, because – as I motivated on talk page – I thought (and still think) that the sentence attributes a statement to three referenced authors (Seurat etc.) that those three citations don’t contain, thus is a misrepresentation of those 3 citations. This edit was reverted by Smallangryplanet(22Nov2025), because he claimed that my own new version was a misrepresentation: on talk page he explained(22Nov), that it is essential for him, that our paraphrasing of the Seurat quote(and 2 more quotes) tells that Hamas in a 2005 agreement has abandoned their ambition to create an Islamic state in all Mandatory Palestine.

This revert was re-reverted by you(22Nov), but your given motivation(in edit summary) was too vague and off-topic for me to understand. You only said (on talk page) that “We have many sources that state that the long-term goals remain the same(…)”, but the disputed issue in the edit quarrel between me and Smallangryplanet was only: what is a correct paraphrasing of those specific three given quotes of Roy+Seurat+Baconi? Could you please say, in your opinion, what a correct paraphrasing of those three specific citations would be, with regard to the ‘1967 borders’? --Corriebertus (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradicting statements from a contributor

[edit]

@Smallangryplanet: In discussions around the lead sentence saying: “…[Hamas] acquiescing to 1967 borders…”, you have appeared to be presenting two different, contradicting, lines of thought for defending the correctness of that Wikipedia sentence/statement.

In a discussion, begun on 12Dec2024, now stored in Archive30, I argued(1Jan2025) that the Wikipedia lead section—in the sentence about ‘acquiescing…’—unjustly says, that Hamas in agreeements in 2005–07 has dropped their goal of seeking a state in all Mandatory Palestine. This was mysteriously denied by you on 8Jan2025: “the lead [does not say that], The lead says that they began acquiescing to the 1967 borders(…)”, you stated.

I challenged you on 17Jan2025 about that (strange) remark of yours: I pointed(17Jan25) at the grammatical structure of the lead sentence; but you quit the discussion and didn’t answer me. In another talk discussion though, begun on 29Nov2024 and now stored in Archive31, you (Smallangryplanet) did react, on 30Jan2025, on that reply of mine of 17Jan2025, but only by ignoring(30Jan25) the grammatical arguments I had made on 17Jan25. So, I still wonder, what our current lead sentence about ‘acquiescing’ actually is saying, in your view, if it is NOT grammatically, simply and plainly, reacting on the preceding sentence: Hamas initially aiming for all Mandatory Palestine but since agreeements in 2005–07 settling for a narrower (final) goal, thus acquiescing to that narrower (final) goal?

But your stance towards that lead sentence even gets contradictory, when in a later discussion, after my editing the lead sentence on 21Nov2025, you clearly state(22Nov) that Wikipedia cannot assert that Hamas retains the objective of a state in all Mnd Palestine because according to the quotes of Seurat+Roy+Baconi – paraphrased in our sentence with ‘acquiescing’ – Hamas in 2005 abandoned their ambition for a state in ‘all Mnd Palestine’: the opposite of what you stated on 8Jan2025! These statements of yours, of 8Jan2025 and of 22Nov2025, can’t be both true! So: which of these two is your true opinion, and which was a mistake? I don’t think we can be expected, in editing discussions, to take account of an editor who contradicts himself. --Corriebertus (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response, I was AFK for a bit. I don't see how my comment in January 2025 contradicts what I said in November 2025. In the first one I am talking about what the lead says and in the latter I am explaining that just because you disagree personally with what the lead says does not mean you can unilaterally or via endless talk page topics WP:BLUDGEON your way into changing what RS report.
I think maybe you need to decide if you're concerned about a syntactic issue (asking, essentially, "does this sentence grammatically refer to the 1967 borders or all of Mandatory Palestine?") or a semantic one ("has Hamas abandoned the goal of Mandatory Palestine?"). As I and others have pointed out many times over the last however many years, consensus and RS disagree with your positions on both points. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Brenner. Gaza Under Hamas. Bloomsbury Publishing.