Talk:1988 Hamas charter

NPOV

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Ian Pitchford (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. This was a collection of one-sided largely polemical sources with barely any academic sources backing some of the things in the article. nableezy - 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to add anything at all to provide the balance you consider necessary. Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea, how about the actual text in the original language of the Hamas Charter, and not just claims of what it supposedly says? What, there just isn't enough room to do this on the Internet? Is the Internet too small to fit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.56.115 (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• What's missing? That provides an additional significant point of view? Agree w/the requirement of reflecting what the RSs say. But need more specifics as to what significant RS-supported facts are not reflected.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is a one sided anti Hamas joke and should be virtually rewritZ, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this whole article be scrapped.It is frankly just a rant against Hamas.The Hamas charter is covered in the Hamas main article page and there it is of a more NPOV.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The document in question is notable and deserves an article. If people think it is POV, they can modify it, add other veiws etc. Maybe it sounds one-sided because mainstream sources do not have much positive to say about this document? BTW the words rant and joke do not belong here. - BorisG (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now read the entire article. I think this is an important article and contains solid material based on reliable sources. However the material is very poorly organsised. The entire article needs reshuffling. I may try to do it if I find the time (not likely any time soon). - BorisG (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with you Boris.The article is a one sided piece directly putting down Hamas and it is clearly a POV article that is not needed on wikipedia as this site is supposed to be a neutral point of view.The Hamas Charter consists of 36 articles and they are not all even covered in this piece, if it was NPOV then it would be covered.Before I edited the lead it read like a Hamas hates the Jews list and much of it still does read like that.The sources consist of Israeli/Jewish media as far as I can see with some books thrown in.You have Reform Judaism magazine,A link to the wikipedia page for Israeli ministry of foreign affairs,A link to the American Jewish congress wikipedia page,terrorism-info.org an Israeli propaganda site, are these your reliable sources?This article has been forked off the main Hamas page and has been used to vilify Hamas and that is not the purpose of articles on wikipedia.It is a rant and a joke as I stated.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reshaped the article and added new section, removed things that were posted twice in the article and generally streamline it and made it more neutral as opposed to the anti Hamas rant that it was.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Owain, you previously complained that the article was an anti-Hamas rant. Now it largely looks like a Hamas propaganda pamflet. Is this your goal? - BorisG (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not look anything of the sort because if it did then there would not be all those pieces on how Hamas hate the Jews.It has opinions from bother sides.Do not know here you get what you are saying from.Now if you want to see a very biased article then just click on the Hamas page, that is littered with bias.Probably comes in at 95% bias.Do not see you complaining about that fact.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Haven't yet looked at that but will in due course. Anyway, that is a discussion for another page. Or are you suggested that bias in this article is justified by bias in another? As for the present page, NPOV does not mean that opposing opinions should be given equal space. Rather, it should reflect the proportion of both views in reliable sources. I don't think it does. For instance, extensive quotes vebattim from one Hamas official is excessive and looks like propaganda. - BorisG (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see you complaining about the quotes from the charter.Why not? That charter is 36 articles long and the whole host of quotes in this article are mostly just the ones that say anything against Israel and the Jews.Now if you wanted a NPOV article then you would be up in arms about the other 80% of the charter not even getting a mention but you are not.Looks like you are a bit picky about when you complain.You could always take your own advice Boris as stated above:The document in question is notable and deserves an article. If people think it is POV, they can modify it, add other veiws etc.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I stand by that statement, and intend to do just that if and when I have time. - BorisG (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wanted to write an anti-Hamas rant, they should simply reproduce the Hamas covenant word-for-word. Indeed, it is not all anti-Jew. There are also some bits about their opposition to the Rotary Club.208.68.128.90 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The section that was here has been moved below to a new section as to facilitate that it's a new discussion -- Kendrick7^talk 04:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

2017 revised covenant

Although the 2017 revision of the covenant is mentioned, most of the article is written as if it doesn't exist. This needs bulk corrective work. The official text is here. Zero^talk 03:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I think this article should be moved to "1988 Hamas Charter" and a new article should be created for 2017 Hamas Charter.VR _talk 16:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems at a bare minimum like we should add the 2017 charter to the “contents” section, ideally above the 1988 contents. BarryBoosta (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I can’t edit because my edit score is too low. I’m trying to figure out how to make suggestions. Who sees these Talk comments? Has anything been done re adding more info about 2017? LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. A summary of the 2017 text should be added, and if this article continues to address both the 1988 and 2017 charters, I think a clarification should be added to the effect of "'Hamas charter' is used to refer to two distinct documents: a 1988 document the group's current leadership has renounced, and an updated charter released in 2017." 74.71.162.63 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

New Charter released in 2017

I have seen others indicate this above, but thought that I'd reiterate here, as I don't have the editing permission to add the relevant information, myself. Hamas released an updated charter in 2017 that differs significantly, in certain areas, from the original 1988 version. Is someone, with the editing permission, able to make the appropriate changes to this article? The 2017 charter text can be found here. Lots of news coverage as well, from CNN, The Guardian, and the BBC. Thanks in advance! Rvandijk101 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Should probably not delete information, but add info concerning the changes. It would be a semi-major project to compare the two versions in detail and write up all significant changes, which is probably why no one at Wikipedia has undertaken the task. It would be best to find a non-Wikipedia reliable source which has already done such comparisons, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm advocating that a subsequent subsection be created with the "Content" section, immediately after "1988 Charter." The new subsection would be titled, "2017 Charter." Certainly, a comparison piece between the two charters would be a larger undertaking, but that's not needed to simply paste in the text of the more recent charter. Just asking if someone would kindly do so, as I don't have the permission to edit this article. Thanks in advance! Robinvandijk101 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Pasting in" the text of the recent charter version (or large subsections of it) would probably be a copyright violation, and if it's not a copyright violation, it might be considered more suitable for Wikisource than Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And similarly, copy and pastes of the 1988 charter is also not suitable.VR _talk 04:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The charter isn't a patented text. There is no copyright violation as it wasn't patented to begin with. It's been copied and shared by journalists in full: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full Chungrob (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we consider whether the article link to the english version of the 2017 charter should link to a version not on the hamas website? I just tried to click through to read it, discovered it looks to be linking to the hamas official website, which did not load. Consider that Hamas may be a terrorist entity in some jurisdictions, and that linking directly to their site may be problematic for that reason. At the same time, the wording of their charter is frequently a topic of news and it's important to be able to know what the text or does not say.PvtGomerPile _talk 08:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This article has extensive coverage of the older 1988 Hamas Charter, but most of the article is written as if the newer 2017 Hamas Charter doesn't exist. 2017 is 29 years after 1988. At a minimum, the first paragraph should link to the 2017 Charter. One could link either to an independent site at middleeasteye.net, or another independent site, or to the Hamas site (optional, and difficult to access), or to all. My simple Google search on "hamas charter 2017" shows the full charter (from middleeasteye.net) as its first link. The lack of a 2017 Charter link on Wikipedia diverges from its policy of neutrality. Gene (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree 100% LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree and someone with edit access needs to address this ASAP 74.71.162.63 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Explanation of Edit Request

I'm suggesting that a new subsection be added to the section "Content" after the subsection "1988 Charter." This new subsection would be called "2017 Charter" and would reflect that content of the 2017 Charter, in the same way that the content of the 1988 Charter is currently reflected, in this article. The full text of the 2017 Charter can be found here. Here are additional sources about it, from The Guardian, BBC, and CNN.

Below is a suggested sample of what the "2017 Charter" subsection could look like. I've pared down the content of some of the articles, for length and readability. But more revision could definitely be done.

Content of proposed new subsection
Robinvandijk101 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to motion that we move forward with the proposed edit as soon as possible so as to get researchers as much up-to-date information as possible in this time. Chungrob (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What's directly below is a large text dump in its current form, not too suitable for being directly pasted into the article... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has clearly been established and these edits are urgently needed DullGret (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

2017 Charter

Preamble

Palestine is the land of the Arab Palestinian people, from it they originate, to it they adhere and belong, and about it they reach out and communicate.  Palestine is a land whose status has been elevated by Islam, a faith that holds it in high esteem, that breathes through it its spirit and just values and that lays the foundation for the doctrine of defending and protecting it. Palestine is the cause of a people who have been let down by a world that fails to secure their rights and restore to them what has been usurped from them, a people whose land continues to suffer one of the worst types of occupation in this world. Palestine is a land that was seized by a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project that was founded on a false promise (the Balfour Declaration), on recognition of a usurping entity and on imposing a fait accompli by force. Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital. Palestine is the true partnership among Palestinians of all affiliations for the sublime objective of liberation. Palestine is the spirit of the Ummah and its central cause; it is the soul of humanity and its living conscience. This document is the product of deep deliberations that led us to a strong consensus. As a movement, we agree about both the theory and the practice of the vision that is outlined in the pages that follow. It is a vision that stands on solid grounds and on well-established principles. This document unveils the goals, the milestones and the way in which national unity can be enforced. It also establishes our common understanding of the Palestinian cause, the working principles which we use to further it, and the limits of flexibility used to interpret it.

The movement

Article 1. The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.

The Land of Palestine

Article 2. Palestine extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land.
Article 3. Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.

The Palestinian people

Article 4. The Palestinians are the Arabs who lived in Palestine until 1947,  irrespective of whether they were expelled from it, or stayed in it; and every person that was born to an Arab Palestinian father after that date, whether inside or outside Palestine, is a Palestinian.
Article 5. The Palestinian identity is authentic and timeless; it is passed from generation to generation. The catastrophes that have befallen the Palestinian cannot erase the identity of the Palestinian people nor can they negate it. A Palestinian shall not lose his or her national identity or rights by acquiring a second nationality.
Article 6. The Palestinian people are one people, made up of all Palestinians, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation.

Islam and Palestine

Article 7. Palestine is at the heart of the Arab and Islamic Ummah and enjoys a special status. Within Palestine there exists Jerusalem, whose precincts are blessed by Allah. Palestine is the Holy Land, which Allah has blessed for humanity. It is the Muslims’ first Qiblah and the destination of the journey performed at night by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It is the location from where he ascended to the upper heavens. It is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. Its soil contains the remains of thousands of prophets, companions and mujahidin. It is the land of people who are determined to defend the truth – within Jerusalem and its surroundings – who are not deterred or intimidated by those who oppose them and by those who betray them, and they will continue their mission until the Promise of Allah is fulfilled.
Article 8. By virtue of its justly balanced middle way and moderate spirit, Islam – for Hamas - provides a comprehensive way of life and an order that is fit for purpose at all times and in all places. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions who can practice their beliefs in security and safety. Hamas also believes that Palestine has always been and will always be a model of coexistence, tolerance and civilizational innovation.
Article 9. Hamas believes that the message of Islam upholds the values of truth, justice, freedom and dignity and prohibits all forms of injustice and incriminates oppressors irrespective of their religion, race, gender or nationality. Islam is against all forms of religious, ethnic or sectarian extremism and bigotry. It is the religion that inculcates in its followers the value of standing up to aggression and of supporting the oppressed; it motivates them to give generously and make sacrifices in defence of their dignity, their land, their peoples and their holy places.

Jerusalem

Article 10. Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Its religious, historic and civilizational status is fundamental to the Arabs, Muslims and the world at large. Its Islamic and Christian holy places belong exclusively to the Palestinian people and to the Arab and Islamic Ummah. Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished. The measures undertaken by the occupiers in Jerusalem, such as Judaisation, settlement building, and establishing facts on the ground are fundamentally null and void.
Article 11. The blessed al-Aqsa Mosque belongs exclusively to our people and our Ummah, and the occupation has no right to it whatsoever. The occupation’s plots, measures and attempts to judaize al-Aqsa and divide it are null, void and illegitimate. Refugees and right of return.
Article 12. The Palestinian cause in its essence is a cause of an occupied land and a displaced people. The right of the Palestinian refugees and the displaced to return to their homes from which they were banished or were banned from returning to – whether in the lands occupied in 1948 or in 1967 (that is the whole of Palestine), is a natural right, both individual and collective. This right is confirmed by all divine laws as well as by the basic principles of human rights and international law. It is an inalienable right and cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international.
Article 13. Hamas rejects all attempts to erase the rights of the refugees, including the attempts to settle them outside Palestine and through the projects of the alternative homeland. Compensation to the Palestinian refugees for the harm they have suffered as a consequence of banishing them and occupying their land is an absolute right that goes hand in hand with their right to return. They are to receive compensation upon their return and this does not negate or diminish their right to return.

The Zionist project

Article 14. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.
Article 15. The Zionist project does not target the Palestinian people alone; it is the enemy of the Arab and Islamic Ummah posing a grave threat to its security and interests. It is also hostile to the Ummah’s aspirations for unity, renaissance and liberation and has been the major source of its troubles. The Zionist project also poses a danger to international security and peace and to mankind and its interests and stability.
Article 16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
Article 17. 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. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine. The position toward Occupation and political solutions.
Article 18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.
Article 19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
Article 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine. Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
Article 21. Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them, such as the obligations that are detrimental to the interests of our people, especially security coordination (collaboration).
Article 22. Hamas rejects all the agreements, initiatives and settlement projects that are aimed at undermining the Palestinian cause and the rights of our Palestinian people. In this regard, any stance, initiative or political programme must not in any way violate these rights and should not contravene them or contradict them.
Article 23. Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.

Resistance and Liberation

Article 24. The liberation of Palestine is the duty of the Palestinian people, and the Arab and Islamic Ummah. It is also a humanitarian obligation as necessitated by the dictates of truth and justice.
Article 25. Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance.
Article 26. Hamas rejects any attempt to undermine the resistance and its arms. It also affirms the right of our people to develop the means and mechanisms of resistance. The Palestinian political system.
Article 27. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.
Article 28. Hamas believes in, and adheres to, managing its Palestinian relations on the basis of pluralism, democracy, national partnership, acceptance of the other and the adoption of dialogue.
Article 29. The PLO is a national framework for the Palestinian people inside and outside of Palestine.  It should therefore be preserved, developed and rebuilt on democratic foundations. Article 30. Hamas stresses the necessity of building Palestinian national institutions on sound democratic principles, foremost among them are free and fair elections.
Article 31. Hamas affirms that the role of the Palestinian Authority should be to serve the Palestinian people and safeguard their security, their rights and their national project.
Article 32. Hamas stresses the necessity of maintaining the independence of Palestinian national decision-making. Outside forces should not be allowed to intervene. At the same time, Hamas affirms the responsibility of the Arabs and the Muslims and their duty and role in the liberation of Palestine from Zionist occupation.
Article 33. Palestinian society is enriched by its prominent personalities, figures, dignitaries, civil society institutions, and youth, students, trade unionist and women’s groups who together work for the achievement of national goals and societal building, pursue resistance, and achieve liberation.
Article 34. The role of Palestinian women is fundamental in the project of resistance, liberation and building the political system.

The Arab and Islamic Ummah

Article 35. The Palestinian issue is the central cause for the Arab and Islamic Ummah.
Article 36. Hamas believes in the unity of the Ummah.
Article 37. Hamas believes in cooperating with all states that support the rights of the Palestinian people. It opposes intervention in the internal affairs of any country. It also refuses to be drawn into disputes and conflicts that take place among different countries.

The Humanitarian and international aspect

Article 38. The Palestinian issue has major humanitarian and international dimensions.
Article 39. The liberation of Palestine is a legitimate activity, an act of self-defence, and the expression of the natural right of all peoples to self-determination.
Article 40. Hamas believes in the values of cooperation, justice, freedom and respect of the will of the people.
Article 41. Hamas welcomes support of the rights of the Palestinian people. Hamas denounces the Zionist project and calls for its protection for war crimes.
Article 42. Hamas condemns imposition of hegemony, all forms of colonialism, occupation, discrimination, oppression and aggression in the world.
Robinvandijk101 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Zahar quote link

The link to the Zahar quote ( "Hamas Leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar Slams PA President Abbas for "Aimless Kangaroo-Like" Political Gymnastics and Says: We Will Not Relinquish Any Piece of Palestinian Land". Memri TV. Retrieved 22 July2014.) goes nowhere. Since MEMRI is a notably biased source, the quote should be removed until the source is established. Mcdruid (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a "notably biased source". They're highly-selective in what they translate, in a way that some people dislike... AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only is MEMRI a notably biased source, the quotation is not to be found at that link. It should be removed unless established reliably. Mcdruid (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a notably biased source, in the sense of deliberately mistranslating. Rather, they annoy people by translating things which those people would prefer to be left untranslated. AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is biased and makes no bones about being biased. The most notable sign is how the headlines of their articles are often contradicted or undercut by the actual content of their articles.

In any event, the link is broken. It should be removed.

Mcdruid (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Come on. Don't be daft. MEMRI is a terrible source. It's an advocacy organization masquerading, in a fairly thinly veiled way, as a non-partisan think tank. And even if it were a credible think tank, almost all think tanks are fairly opinionated sources and even the best of them are still not the best of sources. They are "highly-selective" in the sense of cherrypicking, which is why they are terrible as a source. Good secondary sources don't do this. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hamas position on the Two-State Solution

Why hasn't anyone update this? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders Can someone with access do it? Ras al Ghoul (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "two-state" solution -- it's Hamas being willing to accept 1967 boundaries temporarily, but only recognizing the legitimacy of at most one state. Not sure that Hamas catching up to the 1970s PLO "stages plan" over 40 years later is headline news... AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

ADL

@Drsmoo According to noticeboard: "Some editors commented that ADL is a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics and should be used with caution, if at all."

First comment on talk page and establish consensus before inserting controversial sources. I am not removing that material right now to avoid a (probably not) 1RR. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 7:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

More critically, the "source" is just a press release, so that's not usable. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with using a quote from a named individual in a press release. Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Press_releases--Cawhee^Talk 22:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

Hello!

In the Hamas Charter Wikipedia page, I request that the Analysis section of the page is removed entirely.

It currently cites Bruce Hoffman's "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology," published in The Atlantic on October 10, 2023 a total of seven times without any other citations. While this source has opinions that are possibly relevant to the 1988 document, they are too biased to be a primer "analysis." The Wiki page also does not contain the contents or an analysis of the 2017 Hamas Charter which is arguably more timely.

Thank you! Papillonjelly (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Likely to be a contested change. Melmann 13:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV, Characterization

"Antisemitic canards"

Wikipedia: "The 1988 charter contains references to antisemitic canards, such as the assertion that through shrewd manipulation of imperial countries and secret societies, Jews were behind a wide range of events and disasters going as far back in history as the French Revolution."

Hamas: "With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money, they formed secret societies, such as Freemason, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there."

"— Hamas Charter, Article 22"

--

In the quote given, they don't mention Jews. They mention "Zionist interests". Well who would that be - the Rothschild Barons, who founded Israel after the baron Lionel de Rothschild bought the Suez Canal shares in 1875, through his client and British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Israel's founding document, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, is a letter from Lord Balfour to Baron Walter Rothschild, 2nd Lord Rothschild. And although yes the Rothschild barons are Jewish, they are not 'the Jews', nor are it 'the Jews' who ""With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses," - that would be the Rothschild Barons. They have the ultimate "Zionist interests" mentioned, because they created Israel. Ultimately for the purpose of protecting their geostrategic investment, the Suez Canal, the control of which - with the Strait of Gibraltar and Bab-El-Mendeb - allowed the British Empire to function.

Some examples from primary sources - the Knesset and the Rothschild Archive:

"External debts forced Said Pasha's successor, Isma'il Pasha, to put up his country's shares for sale. In 1875, the London banking house of N M Rothschild & Sons advanced the Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, acting for the British Government, £4million to purchase Suez Canal shares. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild, and according to legend, this was transacted on a gentleman’s agreement, with no documentation, a technically unsecured loan for a sum of several £billion today."

Source: Rothschild Archive, "Lionel de Rothschild and the Suez Canal"

--

"Following the riots in Russia against the Jewish community in 1891–1892, he took part in the actions of the French committee assisting with their migration. His interest in Eretz Yisrael already began during the 1880's, while the first settlements established by Zionists were in severe financial difficulties threatening their continued existence. During 1883–1889, Baron de Rothschild covered all the expenses of Rishon LeZion, Zikhron Yaaqov, Rosh Pinna and Eqron, and donated over 5 million pounds for other settlements. The use of his donations was overseen by hired clerks and specialists, while the Baron himself also visited Eretz Yisrael several times.

"Baron de Rothschild demanded to remain anonymous and he was mostly known as "The known benefactor." His relation to the Zionist movement was ambivalent, while refusing to support Herzl and disagreeing with Hovevei Zion on one hand and gradually becoming involved in the post-First World War efforts of the Paris Peace Conference (1919) and the Balfour Declaration (1917). In 1923 he established PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association) to administrate his lands in Eretz Yisrael, placing his son James as its President."

Source: Knesset, 2015, Baron Edmond James de Rothschild (1845–1934)

--

"In 1924, Rothschild was appointed by his father, Edmond de Rothschild, as President of the “Palestine Jewish Colonization Association” and remained in this post throughout his life. In 1924 he was also elected as Member of the British Parliament, in which he served until 1945. He took an active part in the Parliament’s debates on the White Papers of Passfield (1931) and MacDonald (1939), speaking ill of the failing of the British policy in Eretz Yisrael, and suggested turning it into a British dominion."

"Shortly before his death, Rothschild wrote to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and informed him of his decision to donate 6 million Israeli liras for the construction of a permanent Knesset building. All of the land held by the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association was transferred to the Jewish National Fund."

Source: Knesset, James Armand de Rothschild (1878 – 1957)

--

As for being the funding behind a lot of historic events - well yeah...

Source: The Rothschild Archive, Rothschild Clients https://www.rothschildarchive.org/business/rothschild_clients/

Perhaps most importantly - [to Holy See] or Vatican, a trillion dollar entity.

2001:1C00:1E20:D900:E41D:5620:598D:2C45 (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but what is it you’d like to edit? I think I see what you’re getting at. I personally think there should be a new page for the 2017 charter, and the focus should be on its articles, not the 1988 articles which are sometimes embellished. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

This edit suggests the addition of a third bullet point to the external links section of the page. The only external link to a text of the 2017 charter uses the "hamas.ps" domain, which has unstable service availability and may be subject to internet filters. A secondary external link to the MEE article containing the 2017 charter's full text should be made available directly underneath that bulletpoint as an internet service availability contingency and greater access. Because availability to the full text on the hamas.ps domain was accepted prior to the disruption of that domain, this request should be in line with current consensus on the page.

Also, the existing link pointing to the live hamas.ps page should have an added archive link pointing to the archived hamas.ps domain charter page, or directly to an archived file of the charter. Curlsstars (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Came here to state something similar. Who sees these comments and do they respond? LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

“1988 Hamas Covenant” & “2017 Revised Hamas Charter”

Hi. I can’t make rev to the “Hamas Charter” page because I don’t have enough edits.

When attempting to have a discussion about the conflict, I’m seeing tons of people share the link to the original 1988 Charter page when asserting “the Hamas charter calls for the genocide of all Jews.” They fail to mention the 2017 revision where almost all (or all?) mention of “ending Jews” was removed and replaced with anti-Israeli nationalist language. Three different users used the HAMAS Charter link just yesterday.

I suggest creating a separate page called “2017 Revised Hamas Charter”. And rename the current page “1988 HAMAS Covenant.”

They aren’t the same, and were written 30 years apart. That way, if a user wishes to counter the assertion that Hamas is explicitly anti-Jew, they can link to a separate stand-alone 2017 entry. Even the Atlantic author, whose pro-Zionist opinion piece is cited at least twice on the page, refers to both as separate documents. I can’t read his entire premise because it sits behind a paywall.

As it stands, the current 1988 page has become an anti-Palestinian propaganda tool. Complicated problem, simple solution. “See, no effort on my part to prove I’m right. It says right here Hamas wants to eradicate all Jews.” An overabundance of anti-Palestine propaganda-adjacent opinion pieces are cited along with lengthy excerpts typed out.

The page continually focuses on the antisemitism of the 1988 document, containing in-depth discussions about the ideology, jihadism, and the antisemitic canards of the 1988 doc. Any discussion of 2017 charter is absent in these sections. All of the 1988 articles are listed; none of the 2017 articles appear. And although there are several links that link directly to the 2017 articles, none are provided. The See Also section does not include a link either. I do not see a link to the 2017 charter anywhere on this page. (take that back; appears as if the very last broken/archived link goes to the Hamas website.)

Edit: I did a Google search for “2017 Hamas Charter.” The first result is:

MIDDLE EAST EYE May 2, 2017 — Hamas in 2017: The document in full. Hamas explains general principles ... Hamas reforms founding charter in bid to end international isolation. Second result is the fore mentioned WP “Hamas Charter” page.

I’m definitely not pro-Hamas, but the 2017 revision is very well-written from a legal perspective and I believe it should be discussed separately and not thrown in with the 1988 document.

I would gladly volunteer my time to make this happen. thanks! LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@LegalResearcherSTL: thanks for the suggestion. Given the later 2017 charter, it would be referred to as simply the "Hamas Charter" (this current article) while the article on the older charter would need the date 1988. Common practice on wikipedia is to drop the year from the title for the most recent revision of a document. For example, the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan is simply called Constitution of Pakistan, while the year is indeed attached to the articles Constitution of Pakistan of 1956 and Constitution of Pakistan of 1962. Likewise, the 2014 Constitution of Egypt is simply called Constitution of Egypt, while the date is attached to the older Egyptian Constitution of 1971. And so on.VR _talk 11:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I wasn’t sure how that was handled.

Does this mean that a new page will be created? LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Move Request to make this article "Hamas Charter (1988)" in favor of creating a second article about the 2017 Hamas Charter

Given that the vast majority of this article is about the 1988 charter, and has only a few references to the 2017 charter, I propose moving this article to "Hamas Charter (1988)", and the creation of a "Hamas Charter (2017)". Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Article 22 section is NPOV

I'm not endorsing what the charter says, but the tone is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia and reads like a rant. Many of the other sections describe very offensive claims in neutral, deacriptive terms, without endorsing such claims, so clearly this is possible. 2603:7081:1603:A300:344E:8B5A:4C02:2CC3 (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and while the tropes themselves are fictional and not NPOV, this wikipedia article's summary of them is done in a NPOV and factual fashion, so they still belong. However, to address this concern, I made an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamas_Charter&diff=1186831393&oldid=1186572032 which adds the {{propaganda}} flag at the start of the Hamas Charter#Text of the 1988 charter section to prepare the reader and hyperlinked in article 22 to the specific antisemitic tropes used for readers to understand that these are tropes, like:

sweeping claims about Jewish influence and power.

claims that the Jews were responsible for instigating multiple revolutions and wars,

claims that Jews control the United Nations, Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2023

Please add the new 2017 charter. here you have a link to it: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full 2A02:810C:C0:D7C:696D:A87F:D54:54DE (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: that is already linked to in the section Hamas_Charter#Revised 2017 Charter and looking over it...it seems pretty long: 42 points each of which is a paragraph, plus a preamble. Copying and pasting that would make this article too long...and would sortof defeat the purpose of wikipedia as an encyclopedia that summaries information into digestible info. Pasting the entire text might be appropriate for https://wikisource.org/, though. Is there another source that maybe provides a short one-sentence summary for each of the 42 points? Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've created https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_Charter which is literally verbatim copied and have added a little Wikisource box, like:

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

2017 Hamas Charter

So I'd say making that wikisource article has sufficiently addressed your concern. Again I don't think should post verbatim the 2017 charter into this wikipedia article...though I still think summary of each point from reputable sources would be useful. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

Change “ The updated 2017 charter appeared to moderate Hamas's position by stating that Hamas is anti-Zionist, but retains the goal of eliminating Israel.”

To “ The updated 2017 charter appeared to moderate Hamas's position by stating that Hamas is anti-Zionist, and aims to get rid of Israeli nationalist in Palestinian territory”

Reason: this is more accurate language while the other states opinion of an interpretation as fact. 2601:152:30A:6808:A427:9545:6B3A:2C6E (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.  Spintendo  23:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2017 charter

I've created a summary of the 2017 charter and I'm going to put it here for feedback before I add it to the article. I tried my best to capture each article's intent as neutrally as possible without regurgiating the language of the writers.

The summary is based off of the official translation [here|https://web.archive.org/web/20170505081211/http://hamas.ps/en/post/678].

Below is the summary that I am proposing be included.

   * Article 1 describes Hamas as an Islamic Palestinian resistance movement aimed at liberating Palestine and confronting Israeli nationalist, with Islam as its frame of reference.  

   * Article 2 states that Palestine extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and is the land of the Palestinian Arab people, while Israeli nationalist does not negate Palestinian rights.

   * Article 3 describes Palestine as holding special status as an Arab and Islamic land, especially Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.  

   * Article 4 describes Palestinians as those who lived in Palestine until 1947 plus their descendants, wherever they live.

   * Article 5 states that the Palestinian identity is timeless, passed through generations, and not erased by exile or acquiring citizenships.  

   * Article 6 states that Palestinians worldwide comprise one people irrespective of religion or ideology.

   * Article 7 describes Palestine as central to the Muslim world given its religious significance.  

   * Article 8 describes Islam as providing a balanced way of life fitting for all places and times.

   * Article 9 describes Islam as opposing injustice while upholding human rights and motivating resistance.   

   * Article 10 states that Jerusalem in its entirety is the capital of Palestine, especially the holy sites. 

   * Article 11 states that Al-Aqsa Mosque belongs solely to Palestinians/Muslims; Israeli actions there are null and void.   

   * Article 12 describes the Palestinian right of return as natural, legal, and inalienable.  

   * Article 13 states compensation for refugees is mandated and does not negate their return.

   * Article 14 describes the Israeli nationalist project as aiming to control Palestinian land while threatening regional security.   

   * Article 15 states Israeli nationalist endangers the entire Arab/Muslim nation beyond just Palestinians.  

   * Article 16 states Hamas fights the occupation but not Jews over religion, while Israeli nationalist has conflated with Judaism.   

   * Article 17 rejects violence against groups over religion/race, stating Israeli nationalist does not represent Judaism inherently.  

   * Article 18 states Israeli nationalist founding documents lack legal/moral authority and Israel's creation is entirely illegal.  

   * Article 19 states Israeli nationalist actions in Palestine cannot confer legitimacy on Israel.   

   * Article 20 rejects any concession of Palestinian lands or rights in favor of total liberation.  

   * Article 21 states Oslo agreements violate Palestinian rights; Hamas rejects them.  

   * Article 22 rejects all initiatives undermining Palestinian rights and the Palestinian cause.   

   * Article 23 states "peace" compromising Palestinian rights is unacceptable; resistance remains legitimate.  

   * Article 24 describes Palestine's liberation as a pan-Arab/Islamic/global duty that groups should unite around, not conflict over.   

   * Article 25 states armed resistance is an enshrined right for Palestinians.

   * Article 26 states developing resistance methods is integral and should not compromise resistance itself.   

   * Article 27 states true Palestinian statehood requires full sovereignty over 1967 lands including Jerusalem.  

   * Article 28 describes Hamas pursuing pluralistic democratic partnerships with Palestinian groups to achieve national goals.  

   * Article 29 describes the PLO as the umbrella Palestinian group that must reform democratically.  

   * Article 30 states Palestinian institutions must be built on democratic principles adhering to Palestinian rights and goals.  

   * Article 31 states the PLO serves the people while the PA safeguards Palestinian rights, security and national aims.   

   * Article 32 states Palestinian decision-making must stay independent while Arabs/Muslims have a duty to support Palestine's liberation.  

   * Article 33 describes civil society groups complementing each other to achieve liberation.   

   * Article 34 describes an indispensable role for Palestinian women in resistance and nation-building.  

   * Article 35 states the Palestinian issue is central to the Arab/Muslim nation.  

   * Article 36 states the Muslim Ummah must avoid fragmentation and unify, despite diversity.   

   * Article 37 describes Hamas cooperating with states supporting Palestinian rights while avoiding interfering in other states.  

   * Article 38 states the legal/humanitarian dimensions make Palestine a global cause.  

   * Article 39 describes armed struggle to liberate Palestine as fitting self-defense and self-determination rights.   

   * Article 40 welcomes diverse global support for Palestinian rights while denouncing Israeli crimes.  

   * Article 41 rejects hegemony over any nation, in Palestine or worldwide.  

   * Article 42 condemns oppression, occupation, and aggression globally.

I have extended confirmed permissions but a change this large should be done with consensus, in my opinion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure on whether or not this actually needs to be included but it seems strange to me that the article would include a summary of the original charter and not the revised one. I'm also opposed to including the entire 2017 charter here for a number of reasons but chief among them is if someone wants to read the charter, they can absolutely look it up. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

New article for 2017 charter

@Jayen466 has decided to create A Document of General Principles and Policies for the 2017 charter effectively splitting this article and that article into two distinct articles. While I would have appreciated some consensus building before this happened, it appears it is done now. Now we're left with whether or not the Hamas Charter article should include detailed summaries of the first charter without including detailed summaries of the second. Would really appreciate discussion on this. As it stands I currently find splitting the articles up to be confusing to readers. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, a rewrite to make the Hamas Charter page clearly about the original charter and A Document of General Principles and Policies clearly about the 2017 revised charter would fix this! Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Is that the commonname? It's not very informative for a title. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to A Document of General Principles and Policies? Honestly that one could probably be renamed to A Document of General Principles and Policies (2017 Hamas Charter) to make it more descriptive. As for the article at Hamas Charter I think if we decide to focus it on the old charter then a rename would also be needed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

2017 Hamas Charter redirects to A Document of General Principles and Policies already. Per WP:CONCISE I think 2017 Hamas Charter is a better fit for that article. Then we're still left with what Hamas Charter should be called. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

1988 Hamas charter? Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point! Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think 2017 Hamas Charter is a much better wikipedia title too. "A Document of General Principles and Policies" is simply the name on the document but is not useful outside of the context of the document.

And so first charter should be renamed like 1988 Hamas Charter. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think anyone will be searching for the title of the document to find it. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yea, small c, right? Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, per MOS:TITLECAPS. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

right. BTW, someone made the link 1917_Hamas_charter but that is the wrong century! Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, that's done, anyone object to moving this page to 1988 Hamas charter? Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier you accidentally moved it to 1917 Hamas charter... Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ops, fixed, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to it, but given the content of the article moving it now may cause confusion about the subject of the article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hum, Is there anything in this article that is not in the other? If not then we can just strip out the 2017 related from this one and leave a summary + wikilink.(When I search WP for Hamas charter, this one comes up first and the other a few down. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think a move is fine now. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I say please rename to 1988 Hamas charter now while we're at it. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the 2017 charter did not replace the 1988 charter, so it isn't really a new charter, it is just what it is: A Document of General Principles and Policies, sitting there alongside the historical document that is the 1988 charter. Many people are careful to say something like "the document could be considered Hamas’s new charter" (Hroub); Legrain says "By designating its text as a “wathîqa” (document), Hamas refers somewhere to its 1988 “mîthâq” (Charter) even if linguistically the wathîqa is supposed to be less binding and fixed" ... long story short, actually calling it the "new charter" isn't quite in line with the scholarly sources that maintain and discuss the distinctions (though it's a good redirect). Andreas JN466 17:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, I think having distinct articles isn't really placing a significance on which version is binding though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but you might get some people arguing there has only ever been one charter: the 1988 one. And that by calling the 2017 one a charter readers will be made to think that it's a straight replacement of the 1988 charter by the 2017 one. Andreas JN466 18:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It has to be named something though and calling it A Document of General Principles and Policies is not useful plus not many are going to search for that, they will search for Hamas charter most likely and both will come up, pick one. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And linking to the other page on each page will suffice. you can even acknowledge that some people don't consider the 2017 one a true charter if you can find sources for it @Jayen466. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, moved, if it is reverted, then it will need an RM. Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the 1988 document translations call itself a "covenant", which is more like an agreement, not "charter" anyway. And it is not like there is some formal sovereign organization that legally "chartered" the organization and that cares if the organization didn't properly follow the proper procedures for revising its "charter". But the documents are spoken of as a "charter" and a "revised charter", so by WP:COMMONNAME then 1988 Hamas charter and 2017 Hamas charter seems ok. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Arabic version?

I can't seem to find an Arabic version of the 1988 document online. It would at least be useful to add the arabic title of the document to this article's first sentence. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Source 47 does not exist and that analysis is biased. Deleted that part that does not have a source. Deleted

"The original, 1988 version of the charter emphasize four main themes:[47]

Destroying Israel and establishing an Islamic theocracy in Palestine is essential;[47] Unrestrained jihad is necessary to achieve this;[47] Negotiated resolutions of Jewish and Palestinian claims to the land are unacceptable;[47] Historical anti-semitic tropes that reinforce the goals.[47]" Zanananic (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Source 47 exists. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

1988 charter vs later documents

On 11 December, 21:48, I removed sentence three from section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’ (“However … the "new" discourse … reflects genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas.”). It referred only to source Kh.Hroub in Journal of P.Studies summer 2006, which source I had read (indeed) and appeared to me as (mainly) arguing that the Hamas electoral program of March 2005 and government program in March 2006 showed more “pragmatism and flexibility” and less “Islam” than the 1988 charter did. Even if we accept that statement and analysis of K.Hroub as true and correct, the statement does not imply that the charter had become less relevant in the Hamas movement – simply because a Charter embodies a different function within a movement than an electoral or a governmental program. Therefore, I (with motivation) removed the sentence from the section because Hroub’s statement/analysis did not (explicitly) imply any change in importance of the charter. That edit of mine was directly reverted, by colleague (12 Dec 17:08) (who misrepresented my given motivation for it).

Some editor somewhen has (in our section “Relevance…”) wanted to ‘summarize’ that summer 2006 analysis of Hroub as: “…genuine and cumulative changes within Hamas”. I’m not sure whether these are the (summarizing) words of Hroub or of a Wiki editor, but in either case they don’t seem to alter my conclusion that the whole 2006 article of Hroub does not show or argue that the Charter had become less relevant in the Hamas movement; therefore, I’d still say, Hroub’s 2006 article deserves no place in section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’ (or whatever name we give to that section). (Editor reverted my removal without reacting on my given motivation for it, what doesn’t strike me as a highly constructive manner of cooperating.) Surely, taking up government responsibility (as Hamas did in 2006) is a major or “cumulative” (and “genuine”) change, but ‘changes’ can occur on very many aspects and the mere assertion that ‘great changes’ took place within Hamas therefore does not automatically imply that those ‘changes’ pertained to the relevance of its charter (what therefore, indeed, is also not what Hroub states in his 2006 argument, as far as I can see). Therefore, whatever (else) Hroub is saying or arguing in 2006, it can surely be relevant for other sections in our Wiki article but to my opinion, clearly stated and argued on 11 December, (apparenty) not for section ‘Relevance of 1988 Charter in the early 21st century’. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This sentence in the source does seem to be saying that Hamas has evolved since its 1988 charter (until 2006, the year the source was published):

Since Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, its political positions as presented in the Western media hark back to its 1988 charter, with almost no reference to its considerable evolution under the impact of political developments...

VR _talk 17:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There's more from the source. Its clear the source is saying Hamas's position evolved considerably from the charter:

Yet when the election and postelection documents are compared to the [1988] charter, it becomes clear that what is being promoted is a profoundly different organization.

And

At the same time, taken as a whole, the thrust of these articles—and the entire document—hovers around the concept of the two-state solution without a hint of the “liberation of the entire land of Palestine” or “the destruction of Israel” found in the charter. Except for article 2 upholding the refugees’ right of return, all references in the document are to territories occupied in 1967 (the West Bank, Jordan Valley, “Apartheid wall,” and so on); article 4 regarding resistance proclaims it as a “legitimate right to end the occupation” (emphasis added). The specific mention in article 5 of “complete withdrawal from the lands occupied in 1967” (emphasis added) clearly implies a two-state solution, while the reference in article 10 to international resolutions and in article 3 to the need to “activate the resolution of the International Court of Justice [against the wall]” both show at least implicit recognition of the legitimacy of international law and mechanisms.

You don't agree that the author is arguing that Hamas's 2006 proposal for a national unity government dropped the whole "destruction of Israel" thing?VR _talk 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hroub is quoted by Floor Janssen who writes "According to Khaled Hroub, an expert on Arab politics and the author of several studies on Hamas...the sophisticated language Hamas used after its electoral victory in 2006 proves that the Charter is rather obsolete and no longer functions as the movement’s intellectual platform". Janssen also has other insights:

• "As a result, contrary to Hamas’s early documents [ mainly the 1988 Charter], in the documents we have selected for the second phase [1993-2000] we found no references to the enemy using the term ‘Jews’."
• "we found that Hamas cautiously introduced its positions on a peaceful solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ] throughout the documents we selected for the second phase [1993-2000]"
• "Our analysis of the selected official documents challenges the rather static approach that all Hamas documents reflect the movement’s fundamentalist creed first presented in the Hamas Charter.... It is impossible to ignore the fact that certain aspects we found in Hamas’s early documents have completely disappeared in later documents, while other aspects underwent serious alterations. Our analysis indicates that Hamas has demonstrated an ability to change its positions on fundamental issues such as Israel over time."

VR _talk 05:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

( @VR: I'm busy pondering your comments. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) )

I’ve started this talk section to explain, more thoroughly than possible in the ‘edit summary’, why a sentence/statement in section ‘Relevance in the 21st century’, purportedly based on source Hroub(2006), had to be removed from that section. Vice regent reacted on that talk(15+16 Dec), which is alright, but he also changed the title of the talk section(16Dec), which is questionable because his chosen new title: ‘1988 charter vs later documents’ suggests an incompatibility, competition, ‘conflict’ between that charter and certain later documents. I’ve argued here on 15 Dec that a Charter and an electoral program fulfill different functions for a movement, therefore can exist next to each other, have different content, different ‘tone’ etc. without causing, presenting, some sort of incompatibility-problem (as long as very explicit contradictions between those texts aren’t signalled). The renaming (by VR) of this talk section is in itself (again) a covert attempt to suggest/insinuate such an ‘incompatibility’ between the 1988Charter and some later texts, but I can’t find Vice regent’s arguments for that suggestion.

Then, as to @Vice regent: (VR)’s more explicit comments, on 15+16 Dec in three episodes. (17:50:) Some sentence in an article of 2006 from Kh.Hroub “seems”(!) to be saying that Hamas “has evolved” … So what? ‘Evolving’ is the most logical and trivial thing any organisation does, through time. It is not the task of Wikipedia to mention totally trivial things in our articles; besides, you don’t even tell us in which article you would want to place this (trivial, vague) information, and why. Evolving is not necessarily the same as throwing a 1988 charter out the window.
(17:58, first:) Hroub contends, that, in the 2006 Hamas documents, “a profoundly different organization” is being promoted, as compared to the 1988 charter. First of all, this is vague and ambiguous, for two reasons: (1) the word ‘organization’ has two possible meanings; (2) in what sense ‘profoundly different’? We can’t start to write such (solemnly phrased) vague contentions in our articles like this (vague, pompous) ‘profoundly different…’
(17:58, second:) Author Hroub, according to VR, argues that Hamas, in its 2006 draft National Unity Government Program, “dropped the whole ‘destruction of Israel’ thing”? No: Hroub does not argue that, he only suggests that. By writing that the drNUGP contains ‘not a hint of the…destruction-of-Israel thing’ which indeed is mentioned in its charter, Hroub suggests (but doesn’t say nor argue) that Hamas is no longer after that destruction. Such mere suggestion is, to my opinion, not encyclopedically relevant for us. Wikipedia is meant to present (clear) facts to our readers; mere suggestions can perhaps(!) be encyclopedically relevant for Wikipedia if they come from very powerful or influential people (say, Presidents, popes, etc.); but Hroub is only a Palestinian academic, writing a (partly propagandist) article in Journal of Palestine Studies, (partly arguing and partly) suggesting that Hamas has become harmless (for Israel) and that therefore the US and its ‘vassal states’ (Canada, EU) should resume their financial aid to the P.A..
(16Dec05:23, first:) Fl.Janssen writes: ‘according to Hroub,… Charter is rather obsolete…’. No, that is not what Hroub writes. And I have no idea who this Janssen is. If an unknown (and unrenowned) person should write that the sun has stopped revolving, there would be no reason for Wikipedia to make any mention of that.
(second:) This same Janssen apparently has done some analyses on Hamas documents. We cannot preclude that such analyses might be relevant for some Wiki article, provided we know who this Janssen is, why and when he made such analyses, and you give us your motivation why you want to include that information in a certain (which?) Wiki article. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your above argument boils down to your own WP:OR analysis of why you think the sources are wrong. No one is saying we would state these scholars in wiki voice but we should state them with attribution. If you think these sources are unreliable I'm happy to take this to WP:RSN.

And I changed the section title because your title was way to long, but feel free to change it back. VR _talk 17:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Just out the whole charter

Came here looking for the original charter had to go to the bottom of the page to find a “summary” in which the worst parts are whitewashed. 2601:582:4600:700:C86C:7C22:C7E1:5036 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole text would likely be a copyright violation, and would be more suitable for Wikisource than Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Updating and organizing section ‘Relevance’

Today I’ve organized the section that for years had been titled ‘Relevance in the 21st century’ and on 1 January this year had been retitled “Was the charter relevant 1988-2017?” A charter (or “covenant”) of a movement like Hamas can have different sorts of ‘relevance’ at one and the same moment, each type of ‘relevance’ can vary through time, and different observers, even different Hamas members, can have (even at the same moment) different ideas or opinions about its relevance. Every (perceived) ‘relevance’ can change through time, for example because of ‘political developments’ or preceding statements of relevant persons. Therefore, it makes sense not only to have a section presenting a relevant number of those ideas about its relevance, but also to present them in chronological order. While working to place the already given citations in chronological order, I couldn’t help but noticing some smaller or larger mistakes in citing or paraphrasing the given sources, some omissions, some too lengthy or too vague or (partly) off-topic citations, which I’ve all ‘corrected’/adapted in the way and for the reasons I explain here below. While ‘correcting’ just one citation might easily raise the suspicion that I’m only fostering this or that ‘position’ in ‘the conflict’, by giving five or more ‘corrections’ at the same time together with the chronologization of the section I hope to take away such suspicions and convince the colleagues of the logic in this organizing (and updating) edit. To ‘balance’ the rather ‘positive’ explanation of Ahm.Yousef(Hamas) of the purpose (= ‘relevance’) of the charter in the early days of Hamas, I’ve included the earliest reference I could find (from 2004) of some institute that considered that charter to be a call for destroying the state of Israel (= ’relevance’, also). Nevertheless, ofcourse every detail in my organizing (and updating) edit stands open for debate, further improvement, etc.

1. Since 1 January, a long citation was included of Ahmed Yassin, commenting on his or Hamas’ love (and not hate) for the Jews, saying that Hamas is at discord only with those Jews that expel Palestinians from their homes and land. While the citation does not refer to any Hamas charter, placing it in a section about relevance of the 1988 charter is either off-topic, or a sample of Original Research in the sense that placing it here apparently suggests (on account only of a Wikipedia contributor) that Yassin’s reported opinion is contrasting the 1988 charter.
2. Also since 1 January, three (alleged) conclusions were included from a 2009 book from author F.Janssen. None of them referred to the Hamas charter; the Wiki contributor apparently wanted to suggest that, by publishing new and different texts, Hamas made its own charter less relevant – which is Original Research, therefore I removed it.
3. Since 16 January, a quote from Schram and Irshaid was included, (vaguely) arguing/suggesting the Hamas charter did not influence Hamas’ actions much. Their underpinning seems to me very poor (being silent about a charter in public statements doesn’t mean it has little influence); but the fact that these authors appear unknown and not-notable makes this citation (for now) encyclopedically irrelevant, so I removed it.
4. Also Since 16 January, a statement was added about “.. [not] pan-Islamist agenda [but] .. Palestine ..” which was absolutely vague because it referred to no specific date or period; but even if it would, it would still make no statement about relevance of the charter(s); so I removed it.

The first paragraph of the previous version contained three sentences of which I’ve adapted nrs. 2 and 3:

• Sentence 2 about Ahmed Yousef, was vague (“Hamas has changed its views…”) while the source it refers to is much clearer, so I made that citation more precise: Yousef claimed in 2011 that the charter of 1988 should not (any longer) be taken “literally”, Hamas “has moved on” and now (2011) accepts a “state within the 1967 borders”;
• Sentence 3 cited Kh.Meshaal(2010) correctly, but neglected the fact that Meshaal’s statement came as answer to a question from U.S. Professor Pastor, and that this answer generated a new type of ‘relevance’ for the 1988Charter, in the perception of (at least) this American professor—which I’ve now added in the article.

Second paragraph previous version, citing a 6 May 2017 interview with Kh.Mashal, I’ve slightly corrected, because the interviewer did not use the term "antisemitic statements".

One before the last paragraph:

• Started with sentence: “However many remain skeptical…”. It suggested a certainty about ‘many skeptical people’, which is not being given in the referenced article of mr. Khaled Hroub(2006). I’ve therefore adapted/corrected that ‘quotation’ from Hroub, to make clear, that Hroub, in a discussion (relevant for our article) defending/arguing his idea that Hamas had genuinely (fundamentally) changed, also presumed the existence of skepticism among many people towards his ideas. (Hroub’s: “Without a doubt...many remain highly skeptical…”, is only a rhetorical phrase people use in presenting/defending a theory, which phrase must not be understood, not be read (and reported) as a statement of a sure and clear fact—as Wikipedia did in the previous version. An arguing essay, like this from Hroub, is not a journalistic production purely reporting clear and sure and reliable facts.)
• This paragraph continued with four sentences concering statements of M. al-Zahar in 2006 and 2010. Of them, Zahar’s statements are fully preserved in the section in my updating edit, today. However, the inserted Wikipedia interpretation or ‘explanation’ (in the previous version) that Zahar specifically rejected (‘dis-recognized’) Israel “within its 1967 borders” was not in the referenced source (and misleading): Zahar in his 2010 quote simply stated that Hamas will not recognize Israel, regardless which borders ‘Israel’ would have or accept or claim; there’s no sign that he specifically reacted on someone’s “idea” concerning 1967 borders.

Last paragraph in the previous version: I have adapted this presentation of Nathan Thrall’s ideas etc. to make its language more neutral and correct. Thrall says a lot of things in the interview, but in the context of this section about ‘relevance of the 1988 charter’ the important thing he says or suggests is that Hamas might have already repudiated the 1988 charter, because since long that charter seemed to have been embarrassing some “reform-minded leaders”, but couldn’t repudiate it because of “ambivalence”. Apart from that, Thrall gives as his personal opinion, expressed in the phrase “failed to revoke”, that the Hamas leadership ought to have revoked that old charter but didn’t yet do so. But such personal opinions or abhorrence don’t belong in this section if they don’t give extra information about the (perceived) (ir)relevance of the 1988 charter, which is the topic of the section; for antipathy against that charter or against Hamas, other locations in Wikipedia, especially in article ‘Hamas’, are available. Another slip in the previous version was, that it unnecessarily suggested as fact (though reported by Thrall) that the 1988charter was a source of embarrassment: no, we only have Thrall stating his own uncorroborated theory of some “quiet embarrassment”, which theory we now can and must convey (clearly as a personal theory, not as fact) to our readers. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)