Talk:Hamas government in the Gaza Strip

Old criticism

Oh great, yet another work of fiction masquerading as fact. As if Wikipedia didn't have enough of them already. 6SJ7 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific in your criticisms. As it is, your comment has zero value for improving this article. Eleland 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to improve this article. It is about something that does not exist. 6SJ7 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. There's a group, called Hamas, which has officials, a police force, military, etc, set up in the Gaza Strip, they're enforcing law and order, people have even jokingly talked about "Hamasistan" and "the three-state solution". Are you objecting to the name "Gaza Strip Government", which may be something of a neologism? Or do you just not want to acknowledge that a separate government exists, de facto, in Gaza? Eleland 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Start with the name. Just because something happens somewhere in the world doesn't mean it's necessary to create an article about something that may be the case for only a few weeks, with a made-up, original-research name. But it is a bigger problem than just the name. I have the same problem with the fact that someone added Gaza to the List of countries, which fortunately was corrected. I think people need to just relax a little and not try to write history while it's still happening. 6SJ7 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't really argue with that. There does seem to be a "frist psot!" mentality at work, which favors the immediate creation of an article for every single event. Do you think this information should be merged and redirected to Gaza Strip? Eleland 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged somewhere, or simply deleted. The name is unreferenced and it is unlikely that either Hamas or its opponents would use this name. The information in the article looks similar to and probably duplicates information in other articles on the recent conflict. --JWB 06:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I have changed the name of the article to "Governance of the Gaza Strip" and removed all references to "Gaza Strip Government". I hope this addresses some of the concerns mentioned in this discussion.

Dn9ahx (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with PNA

I suggest any information unique to this page (which is not much) be merged into the article on Palestinian National Authority for the simple reason that Hamas has never claimed it is an entity separate from the PNA (and recognizes Mahmoud Abbas as the legitimate president). There do exist two separate governments that claim to be legitimate, but they both operate under the name "Palestinian National Authority". --Fjmustak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Nableezy (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense - See North Korea and South Korea - they both claim to be the "true" Korean state, and claim soveregnity over the entire Korean peninsula. Same Hamas and PNA claim the entire Palestinian territories, and claim to be the only "legitimate" representative of the Palestinian people.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Newest Commentary

As someone who came here to learn more about Gaza, I was frustrated that this article fails to explain why Hamas and Fatah are in conflict, how their values differ, etc. Avocats (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I made a number of what I consider purely neutral grammar and usage clarity edits before reading the warning on this page. I deleted two or three sections of citations that seem to be run-on gibberish; this was not intended to be vandalism but rather to highlight the problem. I will probably revert them now and make a note somewhere about them. Avocats (talk)

The following quote may be the result of auto-translate; it is incomprehensible.

Responded with another citizen of Rafah: 'Nude talk more about health crisis in Rafah and more exploited in the Drivers' Rafah ', while the other response more sharply, he said:' I wish, Lord, tells the story of Sheikh Eid any of these buses come from? , Is the bus power was to change the color and print the names and fake companies, good company, company Ailia, Islamic Society, as well as be confiscated diesel fuel from the stations and tunnels and traders, and is then to organize a campaign on behalf of Hamas to relieve citizens, but everyone knows ...... ., the story of diesel buses and the story of a failed attempt to improve the image of Hamas' Avocats (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nine years later, this incomprehensible gibberish quoted above is, unfortunately, still unchanged. 188.111.51.114 (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Newer Commentary

Please don't delete this without the due respect of reading (and even possibly commenting) on the content.

Hamas was elected to fill a majority of Assembly seats. They were not elected with the mandate of overthrowing the REST of the democratically elected government and institutions that legitmately existed and helped govern the Gaza Strip. This fact was not duly reflected until my edits were made. My edits allow for the fact that Hamas had legitimacy because of their election originally, and the questioning of that legitimacy after they violated their election mandate. It is patently one sided to not make note of this.Gamesformay (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

you are confused on a few things, Fatah attempted a coup in Gaza, Hamas repelled the coup. Gaza itself does not have elections exclusive of the PNA, so the 'democratically elected' bit is probably overplayed. But your additions are not appropriate, it is your own commentary on the situation. Please read WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. Nableezy (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How can Fatah, which is the hand of the PLO (who is the ONLY legitimate voice of the Palestinian people, as voiced by many international declarations) attempt a coup??? The hamas won 45% of the vote, not a majority, only a plurality...and most certainly not a dictatorship. I paired down my edit. I have now only made the edit that hamas controls gaza and that hamas won a plurality of 45% of the Palestinian Assembly seats. This is no commentary on my part, zero.Gamesformay (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamastan

The article on Hamastan practically overlaps this one. Is there any reason not to merge it into the Governance of the Gaza Strip?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you also advocate the insertion of Zionist entity into the lead of the State of Israel as an alternative name. It is ridiculous and undue to insert a pejorative neologism into the lead of an encyclopedia article on the governance of a geographic entity. Also the source is clearly marked "analysis", from WP:RS:"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The reason we do not use them for statements of fact is that they contain unencyclopedic content such as pejorative neologisms not suitable for our articles. At best you could attribute the source, but I don't see why this one particular commentators opinions are suitable to be inserted into the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so with the Zionist entity a.k.a. Israel, and since your own removal of sourced mateiral is editorial analysis, i revert you back.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Per WP:RS Analysis articles are not suitable for verification of facts. Your edit is a clear violation of this policy. The analysis article could be used for the opinion of the author, but it would be massively WP:UNDUE to insert this opinion into the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added another source if you want I can provide many more.--Shrike (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dlv, don't mix your emotions into it - not worth it.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with emotions, I am quoting policy. I would ask you to concentrate on a discussion of the sources and policies rather than soapboxing your own wrongheaded assumptions regarding the motivations of other editors.Dlv999 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The info is well sourced, notable (especially in Egnlish sources) and should be here per WP:WEIGHT. End of story.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

First, Greyshark09, explaining this: I reverted the edit by AndresHerutJaim/sock puppet Bach Aria, as it is a blocked sockpuppet. That is a revert always allowed. It looks like you did not know this, esp after asking "who is blocked" in your es.

Second, I have developed an opinion: it should be out. Two sources from 2007, the one (Guardian) I could read says: what is now being dubbed "Hamastan" -- that is weasel, and not a source (but for his taxidriver). We do not have to reproduce every comedians wordplay. And this being 2012, the word did not stick, did it. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The version of lead, including mentioning of Hamastan existed for several months prior to current objection by Dlv, Andres' sockpuppet interrupted in the middle, he doesn't belong to the discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And re my second remark? -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hamastan is mentioned widely in 2007 and before, like in der Spiegel, Ha'aretz, Washington Post etc. However the term is used later, here are examples: YNET1,YNET2 in 2009; wide use up to June 2011 in Jerusalem Post. Yet, i do see your point, the term use is much less since 2007. I think we can move it from lead to the body of the article and mention that the term has decreased in utilization since 2007. Agreed?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Even the Jerusalem Post quotes are over a year old. And then, the JPost started using quotes around it. The fact that a politician is using the word does not say broad acceptance either. (I wrote "comedians" to the same extend). Haaretz is from 2007 and an op-ed. I can note that I am repeating, in different words, arguments mentioned above wrt WP:RS. The Der Spiegel, WaPo and YNET links are broken. So what do we have: another 2007 op-ed piece and two JPost quotes from politicians. The word-play did not stick. -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of links - Der Spiegel 2007, Kuwait Times 2007Der Spiegel 2010 (Ge), WaPo 2007, Al-Arabiya 2009YNET 2009, YNET 2009 2nd, YNET 2011, YNET 2011 2nd. I don't understand why you don't want to reach a compromise on this. It is clearly sourced and notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

De facto theocratic dictatorship?

No need for much discussion here, I'm making this post because I forgot to give a reason for my revert in the edit summary. The aforementioned description that filled the "Government type" parameter in the infobox is supported by one highly unreliable reference. It's taken from a direct quote by an ex-CIA director James Woolsy who doesn't qualify as reliable neutral source. Here's the quote: Cooper noted immediate elections could thwart Egypt’s possibilities for freedom and democracy, because there really aren't many organized opposition forces, other than the Muslim Brotherhood. "Right, and that's what happened in Gaza," Woolsey said. "Hamas called for immediate elections, and we got one vote, one man – and it's now a theocratic dictatorship." Highly unworthy. Please do not reinsert. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, newsmax.com??? Are you serious? You really want to bring a patently unreliable source in an article? That's how you want to approach this? Is there a serious source that calls the government in the Gaza Strip either a theocracy or a dictatorship? Because I could give individuals who call Israel a theocracy. That doesnt mean I then add that as a fact to an encyclopedia article. Or hound your edits to do so. nableezy - 05:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Quote_from_former_CIA_official_in_Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip nableezy - 06:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the latest from The Begin-Sadat Center qualifies as usable for an unattributed statement of fact in the article. The Carnegie Endowment source is however a very good source, so at least thank you, Shrike, for bringing that. But it is an extraordinary statement to claim that Gaza is governed under a dictatorship based on one obviously hostile position paper. That does not qualify for the extraordinary sourcing that such a claim needs. nableezy - 07:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its extraordinary statement as evident by two source nevertheless it could be brought to WP:RS/N--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The only source for "dictatorship" that I see is the paper by Inbar. But wait a second. On another article, you are demanding that others go source by source to show that it is a reliable source, and say Per WP:ONUS he should explain it. Which is it? You can blanket remove tens of sources "per BRD" and others have to justify each source, or you can determine that a source is reliable with no justification? Those are two contradictory positions, changing based solely on whether or not you like the material being inserted. nableezy - 14:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there is no problem with "Carnegie" , now Inbar is expert in the field [1] - "Efraim Inbar is a Professor in Political Studies...His area of specialization is Middle Eastern strategic issues with a special interest in the politics and strategy of Israeli national security" So I don't problem with his paper either.--Shrike (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The rest of you comment have nothing to do with improving this article so such comment is not appropriate in this talk page.--Shrike (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I do see a problem, that being a single partisan position paper is being used to claim that Gaza is governed under a dictatorship. Where does the paper by Brown, an actual scholar on the topic, say that Gaza is held under a dictatorship? And oh, by the way, "authoritarianism" isn't a type of government. And of course the comment above is appropriate for this talk page. It is a reasonable expectation that an editor not try to play the rules a certain way depending on how they feel about the material. You have claimed elsewhere that a user must "per [{WP:OPNUS]]" justify each and every source that you blanket removed. Here you claim the exact opposite. The OSE argument only really works if you arent making two opposing arguments at different articles. Otherwise, its just "I'll play this game here, and that game there". nableezy - 19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Despite the reliability or unreliability of whatever sources, listing the Hamas-based government in Gaza as a dictatorship or authoritarian in the infobox is a POV. Please note, and I stress this most, that no other article about a country in Wikipedia lists the government type as "Dictatorship" or "Authoritarian". That includes Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somaliland, Burma, North Korea etc. Secondly, on a particular matter like this where we're factually defining the type of government that Hamas runs, we should not rely on Israeli sources because unlike most other issues, almost Israeli source agree that Hamas is an authoritarian, theocratic terrorist group to varying degrees. Third, important information such as that which the Carnegie Endowment provides should be discussed in a Politics section not the infobox where only facts are expected. In that section we could discuss the different views. After all, Hamas won municipal and parliamentary elections and its leadership is prone to change with intra-party elections (which were held earlier this year actually). Inter-party elections are being negotiated as a first step towards reuniting with the PA as stipulated by the Doha Agreement. While it has been delayed, both sides still "officially" support it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If Gaza entity is not a dictatorship, then i'm still curious what is it? It is as rediculous to claim Gaza is a democracy that North Korea is a democracy (People's Democratic Republic that is); however we can use the term single-party state, implemented for North Korea. In any case, Gaza as well as Palestinian Authority have not held any elections since 2006 - nations without elections cannot be defined as democracy or republic. Theocracy might not be a suitable term for Hamas government, yet, since it is a deeply religious single state establishment it is most similar to Iran - perhaps unitary state is a proper term?; I would ask other editors to give a proper term for Gaza strip governance to their best understanding (parliamentary democracy is out of question of course).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I object to the notion that parliamentary democracy must be ruled out. Free and fair elections are stipulated in the Palestinian constitution which both administrations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank officially ascribe to. Parliamentary and presidential elections haven't been held because of the divisions between the groups and all which that stipulates, and not because the system rejects elections such as in North Korea which is not close to being a worthy comparison. That being said, I am not sure how to factually describe the type of government. Until we figure that out, the current contradictions in the infobox which state that the government is a parliamentary democracy, a dictatorship and authoritarian should be removed. We'll leave it blank for the time being. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Free and fair elections have not been held since 2006. No matter how Palestinians in Gaza and PA feel about it - they cannot vote for their representatives (due to disagreements or whatever). Some states use emergency or disagreements as reasons for not holding elections. Such states seize being democracies de facto.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if the constitution says it, it must be true. And if the president in country X gets 97% of the vote for the past 40 years, despite oppressing the people and facing hatred, he must've been democratically elected, right? The constitution calls for free and fair elections - and these have not been held since Hamas' rise to power. They could've held elections, involving Hamas, reform groups, PFLP, DFLP, Islamic Jihad, etc. As you said, the rift with the Palestinian Authority has been an obstacle, as they want elections involving them. Yet a few months ago they signed reconciliation agreements and agreed on elections, only to create bogus excuses a few days ago and decide to stop giving out voter registration which has either cancelled or postponed the elections, again. You don't need reconciliation with your enemy to hold free and fair consisten elections. Nearly every country has polar parties that hate each other fiercely, and yet sit in the same Parliament or run in the same elections. Elections in Gaza are postponed and postponed and postponed, while Gaza is ruled by the same people, who decide whether protests are allowed or not (for example, they didn't allow anyone to protest against Assad until about a week or 2 weeks ago). They haven't allowed for elections, and have cited bogus excuses for them, thus creating a dictatorship. For how long should this continue until you will agree? 10 years? 50 years? Perhaps even after 100 years, you will stall refuse to call it a dictatorship. And that's perfectly fine. But a large consensus in the international community has been formed, and proper references have been given, and I'm sure more can indeed be given.--Activism1234 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly restrictions on other parties in Gaza, but they do operate. Like it or not, in the last elections held across the oPt, Hamas won. Gaza isn't a state, so you there is another problem with "single party state". Hamas won the last election, an election widely reported as free and fair. To call a government run by the winner of an election a dictatorship goes well beyond the meaning of that word. nableezy - 20:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have overlooked Greyshark's proposal of "unitary state". This appears to be a neutral and accurate description of the government in Gaza that I think we could all agree on. Any objections? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Gaza isn't a state. Other than that, I guess it fits. nableezy - 20:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point (duh?). How about de facto unitary state? Still not entirely accurate since the WB and the GS are technically the same entity. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, good point; is there any other term we can implement, like unitary government or unitary entity?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unitary state is very confusing. Great Britain is a unitary state, but would we say the Gazan leadership and government resembles Great Britain? Not by a long shot. My personal recommendation is to either add a lot of referenes for theocratic dictatorship, or perhaps create a brief section within the article that states it's constituion calls for parliamentary democracy, but according to... But if enough references can be given to prove a theocratic dictatorship that can be agreed are reliable and unbiased, then perhaps it can be left as is... Still, as someone mentioned above, even countries like Zimbabwe don't have that mentioned, so it would be better to include it in the article, but the words "parliamentary democracy" certainly shouldn't stand alone. For the time being, perhaps "de facto theocratic dictatorship according to many experts?"--Activism1234 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the word "authoritarianism" from the description next to "theocratic dictatorship." Dictatorship and authoritarianism are widely used as synonyms. I kept the reference for authoritarianism and put it next to "theocratic dictatorship." Does anyone have an issue with this removal?--Activism1234 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources added are either insufficient or do not support the material. Authoritarian and dictatorship are not synonyms, despite your claim above. There are countless sources saying that Russia's government is quite authoritarian, that does not mean it is a dictatorship. This does not once say anything about Gaza being governed under a dictatorship. So we are left with a single position paper, a paper that is unambiguously hostile towards Hamas to make this claim of fact. That does not suffice. I am removing the term as lacking the proper sourcing for such an extraordinary claim. nableezy - 22:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You will say that anyone, no matter how much regarding the Middle East or Palestinain politics, who calls a duck what it is - calls Hamas a dictatorship - is hostile to Hamas (not a bad thing either). There were 3 credible and reputable sources there. A personal opinion that a dictatorship is not a dictatorship should not cause one to remove reputable and credible sources. If I support Leader X, and he did something wrong which was added to Wikipedia, I may not like that but I have no right to remove the sources that show that.--Activism1234 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I would not say such a thing. The "reputable and credible sources" that you are claiming either a. did not support what you claim (future reference, googling hamas dictatorship is not a sufficient replacement for reading the actual source), or b. not sufficient for the exceptional claim that a duly elected leadership is a dictatorship. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. To make this statement of fact in the encyclopedia's narrative voice, you need to multiple high-quality sources. You, nor has anybody else, brought such sources. nableezy - 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that authoritarian and dictatorship are not synonyms. Still, dictatorship is a form of government, and authoritarianism is a method, so dictatorship would probably make more sense to be in a box relating to type of government. --Activism1234 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If there were multiple high quality sources that say that it is a dictatorship, then it might make sense. I'd like to see those sources first. nableezy - 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hamas won elections in 2006 in both the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, as some prefer) and the Gaza Strip. They are not part of the government in the West Bank. After the election, the Palestinian Authority still held onto power, and Hamas took power in a bloody coup in 2007, kicked out Fatah and the Palestinian Authority (destroyed many of their homes too), and assumed control of the government. They have not held elections since. They silence dissent, even to the point of execution. They can artifically create a fuel crisis at their whim. Many experts and pundits agree - and these should all be properly cited and referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Bring multiple high quality sources that say that the government in Gaza is a dictatorship. Not op-eds, not position papers by partisan NGOs, actual scholarship. nableezy - 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to violating the 1RR, you now bring a blog entry for this claim. Please self-revert and read WP:RS and WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. nableezy - 23:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Barely a day off his topic ban and he's already threatening enforcement action against other users but whatever. Inbar's report was republished in the JPost[2] which is an RS. Moreover, Hamas green banner bears the Islamic axiom, "there is no god but god and muhammad is his prophet." What do you call that? Little House on the Prairie?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I call that something said by over a billion people multiple times every day. I dont see a threat anywhere, please do not continue to misrepresent what is clearly written. This is a WP:REDFLAG claim, and requires several high quality sources to place in the article. Such sources have not been brought. Most especially your initial revert which introduced a blatantly unreliable source. nableezy - 00:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't bother responding to your polemics. Here are your sources Fox Vancouverdesi and Denverpost all via the Associated Press. In five years of rule in the Gaza Strip, Hamas has established a functioning, authoritarian mini-state with a strong Islamic flavor, so firmly in control that nothing short of an unlikely Israeli military takeover seems capable of dislodging the militants. Please show cause why an article by the Associated Press, republished by various news sources barely 2 weeks ago, should be disregarded.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My polemics? Thats funny. Please show where in that article it calls the government in Gaza a theocratic dictatorship. Or just a theocracy. Or just a dictatorship. nableezy - 14:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to basics

Since it has so far led to nowhere - let's make a poll of editors invovled in the article on the proper description of the Hamas rule in Gaza. The options are parliamentary democracy with postponed elections (official position), theocratic dictatorship (POV but seems to me reliable term), Single-party state (not fully correct, but de facto Hamas is the only party performing ligislation), unitary state (a somewhat soft term to describe the Gaza entity). We can also use two terms since the situation in the Gaza Strip is highly controvercial and confusing, not saying temporary (on the other hand North and South Koreas are temporary for now 62 years already).Greyshark09 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The most recent sources describe the Hamas regime as an authoritarian mini-state with a strong Islamic flavor. We are compelled therefore to apply the terminology employed by the most recent reliable, verifiable sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what Hamas government is, but it is certainly not a military dictatorship and not an autocracy (that is denounced in this study [3]). I tend towards a single party state as the most proper term (whether Gaza is indeed a state or not - that is semantics, Azawad is also not really a state). We can altogether keep Parliamentary democracy (elections not held since 2006), though at some point within a year or two we would have to remove it, in case elections are not held.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Im fine with "Currently governed under a single-party system" if you want. But whether Gaza is a state or not is not simply semantics. nableezy - 14:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree to "single-party system".Greyshark09 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd go with either Juijitsuguy (authoritarian with Islamic flavor) or single-party state. Since it's not really a state though, we can either put state in quotes ("state") or perhaps write single-party territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "Authoritarian" would probably be the best description since there are multiple, very recent, reliable, verifiable sources that describe it as such, as noted above. We also have this from Rolling Stone that describes Hamas rule as autocratic rule. So based on the sources, "authoritarian" or "autocratic" would be better suited descriptions--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So yeah to make it clearer I'd cast my vote as "authoritarian."--Activism1234 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would have no problem with "single party entity" or "system" if we also include the bit about parliamentary democracy (no elections held since 2006). Strongly doubt that elections or unity govt with Fatah will take more than two years, but with the state of Palestinian politics these past few years who knows. Personally though I would prefer unitary entity. As for "authoritarian" or "dictatorship," both options are not really up for discussion. Wikipedia does not officially define governments or states as "authoritarian" or "dictatorship" no matter the case. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Among 5 editors, 3 agree on "single-party entity" (Blueshark, Al Ameer and Nableezy); 2 agree on "Authoritarian rule" (Activism, and JJGuy). Also Al Ameer demands inclusion of "parlimentary democracy (elections have not been held since 2006)", while Activism seems to agree on "single party entity" (though tends to "Authoritarian rule"). Is that correct?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears so. What Al Ameer says appears reasonable, my suggestion is to vote on that after a decision is decided though, since the wording of the final outcome may affect whether editors - including Al Ameer (wasn't sure whether he wants that included for all or only "single-party entity") - want that included. Is there any precedent for including those words though? --Activism1234 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is "single-party state" definition, but since Gaza is not a state we would slightly modify the definition into "entity".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

*I agree mostly with what Al Ameer son stated, that it is a parliamentary democracy with elections on hold, and that any commentary that the government is "authoritarian" or whatnot is entirely unacceptable. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC) sock comment removed

If you agree with Al Ameer, then you also agree to include "single-party entity"?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since Unique's comment was removed, it simplifies the vote. It seems the consensus would be "single-party entity" - 4 votes; Other definitions are in minority or a small majority "autocratic" has only 2 votes; "parliamentary democracy" - 3 votes. Note: Activism is ready to compromise both on "single-party entity" and "autocracy".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Education section edits

There are several poor sources used in this edit. The edit uses idfblog.com to say, in the encyclopedia's voice, that Hamas holds summer camps to educate children in such topics as holding a Qassam rocket launcher to aiming at Israeli targets, and also conducting paramilitary exercises. The edit then uses a youtube video from PMW to claim that Hamas staged a re-enactment of the capturing of Gilad Shalit, then uses an editorial to claim that Hamas also regularly indoctrinates children. That's just the first 3 sentences. None of those sources, which are used repeatedly, are acceptable for making such statements of fact in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 00:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I realized that some people would have an issue with the use of the IDFblog reference. As such, I included another reference right next to it. In addition, I included a slew of references to a diverse array of sources throughout the edits, which would be sufficient even without the IDFblog reference (which itself is accurate and contains its own links to articles), and which back up the link.

The references I used include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Journalistic articles, such as The Jerusalem Post, CNN, Palestine Today, and Palestine Press Agency.
• Anti-Hamas media outlet
• Photo essays of summer camps in Palestinian media outlets
• Statements by UNRWA officials
• YouTube videos showing Palestinian children's television shows, as well as videos showing the summer camps.

The PMW video is a real video taken from a media-watchdog group that records Palestinian television and uploads it to YouTube. If I watched Palestinian television that day at that hour on that channel, I too would've seen it. If needed, I can add in articles as well to support the PMW video. The editorial cited an article and then explained it. That was the reason for the editorial reference. As a whole, these references certainly qualify as real sources, and even if we were to remove one or two, the rest would still stand perfectly tall and be able to back up those other references. There is no reason to remove this critical information. If needed, I can find more references from news articles, political pundits, YouTube videos, Hamas statements, and Palestinian media outlets. That is not an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I call on Al Ameer to self-revert himself, as I explained above my wide array of proper journalistic articles, representing Israeli, American, and Palestinian (pro-Hamas and anti-Hamas) sources. If necessary, remove those containing links to YouTube videos until that can be dicussed further here. There was no reason to remove the rest. A statement by a UNRWA official or a Hamas spokesman about the summer camps should not be washed away because it makes Hamas appear in a negative light. I wrote down facts, not opinions. Again, I didn't write "Hamas summer camps indoctrinate children to blow themselves up." I wrote down that Hamas has summer camps to educate children in a wide array of topics, ranging from... I wrote topics that members of Hamas mentioned as well... It is silly that this is not considered a reliable source. Again, I expect a self-revert immediately.--Activism1234 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It just got removed but,

I will state here my support for the removal of the flammatory, poorly sourced claim that the government is a dictatorship. The Carnegie source states that the government is authoritative, this is very from saying its a dictatorship. The Rubin one is just a rant that includes broad generalizations and notably false statements. I forget the other one's and am confused by the page's history to find them... But still, no dice for such edits. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)sock edit removed

Education section

I just removed a swathe of material added to the "Education" section by Activism1234 for a number of reasons, but most importantly the quality of the sources. Just to go through the wide majority of them, Youtube which is used three times ([4], [5], [6]) is not a reliable source, blogs are not a reliable source (especially those of the Israeli military [7]), the Daily Caller article [8] appears to be a malware-infected site according to my computer and is highly biased anyway, the Arabic-language Agency Palestine Today [9], [10] is an unreliable source, photo albums [11] are unreliable and while townhall.com [12] is not necessarily unreliable, its extreme bias undermines its credibility. All in all these are just terrible sources that were most likely found in a basic google search.

Furthermore, passages like this that are backed by the reliable JPOST have no place in the article: The United Nations has opened up summer camps as well, which counter these camps run by Hamas. Approximately 250,000 children attend these camps, as of 2010. The participants engage in arts and crafts, sports and other cultural activities, and are mostly between the ages of six and 15.[ref] In May 2010, Muslim extremists attacked a UNRWA summer camp, which is sponsored by the United Nations. They tied up the guards and lit the camp on fire.[ref][ref] On top of the fact that Hamas involvement is speculation, what's this have to do with governance? All the information about summer camps by Hamas or the Islamic Jihad (not even a part of the govt.) have no relevance here. These are the activities of parties or organizations and if they belong anywhere its in their respective articles.

I get the feel that the recent edits are meant to simply demonize Hamas. Putting it simply, this is an encyclopedic article on the current government of the Gaza Strip, not a place to attack or praise Hamas. These edits do not improve the article, they only degrade it --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

These edits are meant to give information on how the governing party runs educational programs. How in the world is a photo essay publisehd by Palestine Press Agency considered unreliable?? Just because you don't like what a picture shows doesn't mean you can remove it. The fact that you left in the number of summer camps Islamic Jihad runs but not those Hamas runs, and removed statements by Hamas spokespeople and UNRWA officials, completely contradicts your entire thesis and is regrettable. A self-revert appears necessary.

You say that JPost is reliable, which it is. Yet you removed the JPost article, specifically the part that said 100,000 children attended these Hamas summer camps! No mention about Hamas summer camps are given, yet Islamic Jihad, which does not govern Gaza, is mentioned, while you state only activities related to the government should be mentioned! This contradiction is very disappointing, and discredits much of your self-revert. I would like to put back in at the very least the information the JPost article provides on the summer camps.

If you would like, you can remove the YouTube videos that show summer camps until they can be discussed further. But by no means should anything else have been removed.--Activism1234 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: For the time being, I added some information using the following sources - NPR, Paltimes, JPost, and the Center on Terrorism. I do not expect any of these to be an issue. Some of the stuff I added is completely new, this is not simply a self-revert (half of my original information isn't there yet, only a few sources mentioned above. The JPost one is the same, but there was no reason to remove it when the remover called it a reliable source).--Activism1234 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not self-revert nor should I. Actually, you are in violation of 1RR since you readded the part backed by JPOST about the 100,000 children in Hamas camps and you readded the info backed by the Pal Times photo gallery with an additional gallery. I will not report the violation simply because I don't like to and never have. A piece of advice: stop continuing to arbitrarily add the same material to the article when there is clear opposition to it as you an see here and above. Instead of bypassing civil discussion between editors, why not discuss matters first before reinserting exceptional material? To reiterate, photo albums, like videos, are not reliable sources. About the Islamic Jihad's camps, I made my objection to its inclusion clear as you can see above. I will remove it promptly to avert any confusion of my intentions. Regarding the new material, the Center for Terrorism and MEMRI are also unreliable sources and the material that is backed by reliable sources is still, to put it bluntly, garbage. Instead of a comprehensive summary of education in the Gaza Strip, the picture that is being painted is that Hamas is an evil organization that teaches children how to hate and kill. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that adding new material/different material was not considered a revert. MEMRI is by no means an unreliable source - they take videos seen on television and upload it. Anyone who understands Arabic can watch any of their videos with Ismail Haniyeh speaking and hear what he says perfectly. They are also a research institution and experts in their respective area, and their produced results should by all means be considered as produced by a research insitute using experts who analyzed various pieces of work and translated it. The Center for Terrorism is renowned for their work in terrorism, documentation, and research papers - the research paper I linked to pieced together various articles in the media. If you can find me where a consensus was reached saying these are unreliable sources, then I will happily skip along. A compromise perhaps can be reached, whereby words such as "The Israeli institution The Center for Terrorism..." as indeed this center is at the top of their field in collecting examples of terrorism or indoctrination from various sources and compiling it and analyzing it. They are a distinguished organization, whose work should not be called "unreliable" because of the viewpoints of one particular person.

More importantly, it still evades me why you would not remove the JPost article, after acknowleding that it is reliable, when it has to do with the subject. A piece of advice: stop arbitrarily removing material in an article that is valuable to understanding the article and then contradict yourself that said source is reliable and relevant to the article. I would like to reiterate, you stated JPost is reliable, and the article talked about Hamas summer camps. Your refusal to put it back in demonstrates a regrettable bias clouding your judgement. Instead of a comprehensive summary of education in the Gaza STrip, the picture that is being painted is basically not the full picture. If the facts paint a certain picture, so be it. The facts are - Hamas runs summer camps that teach children to hate and kill. Perhaps that's disgusting to Mr. A, and perhaps that's beautiful and praiseworthy to Mr. B. Mr. A can arrive at his own conclusion based on the facts reported in an unbiased way that are corroborated by a huge amount of references, among them pro-Hamas media outlets, anti-Hamas media outlets, UN spokespeople, hamas spokspeaple, IDF spokespeople, JPost articles, CNN, and research institutions, and Mr. B can arrive at his own conclusion based on the facts reported etc etc... I don't necessarily care how much you include - but there is no reason the JPost article should not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Governance of the Gaza Strip → Hamas Government in Gaza – This article's secondary title has for long been Hamas Government in Gaza, though it actually seems to be the most common and more specific naming for the Hamas-administered entity in the Gaza Strip. If we make comparison we get 215,000 results for "Hamas Government in Gaza" [13], 22,200 results for "Hamas administration in Gaza" and 41,000 results for "Governance of the Gaza Strip" (most of which seem like copy-paste of wikipedia article). I herewith propose to rename it to Hamas Government in Gaza.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this article should cover the governance of the Gaza Strip since the Gaza Strip was established. The Hamas Government can be summarized here, and split off into a separate article (such as how each President of the USA gets a Presidency article), since it would be about a specific government term -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The government in power should not dictate the article title. If an article on the Hamas period of Gaza Strip governance is desired, than a separate article should be created.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- This article should be about how Gaza is governed. That is separate from the identity of the particualr government, which might change if the area is subject to domocratic elections. The target should be forked off and the article purged of detail referring to the present administration. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - if the government of Gaza changed, I think the shift would be radical enough to make a separate article for that, and change this to Hamas government only. I don't think it'd be like most countries, where although it may shift from right to left, the general governance will still remain. However, for now, renaming it as Hamas government of Gaza is problematic, because we have info on when it was ruled by the Palestinian Authority... --Activism1234 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hamas government change

The government of the Gaza Strip has already been reshuffled, which was described by the sources as a defacto new Hamas government [14],[15]. This changes the situation and requires another article or even two. I think that this article can be kept the same (or maybe renamed to "Hamas Administration in Gaza" because al-Sharq al-Awasat published an article suggesting Hamas moves towards official diplomatic regulations [16]) and include chapters on the first and second Hamas governments. Thoughts?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit thin. A new article for every cabinet reshuffle is excessive. The two articles cited for the reshuffle are in fact the same article. I don't see anything here to warrant reviewing the unanimous decision against an almost identical name change suggested several weeks ago. Also, I can't find the "defacto new Hamas government" quote in any of the sources. Dlv999 (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the Palestinian Government article - it includes all PNA governments from the inception of PNA, while only one article on a Gaza Strip government. Technically, the first Hamas government and the Administration were same same until early September 2012, but now the Hamas Administration (this article) is not the same as Hamas Government (there are two governments).Greyshark09 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about "the Hamas Administration", it is about "the Governance of the Gaza Strip", which currently happens to be run by a Hamas administration. This was made clear in the recent discussion where your suggestion for a name change was rejected unanimously. Dlv999 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

But there is a Hamas administration, are you implying it should have another article?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Governance of the Gaza Strip → Government of the Gaza Strip – Most articles about Governments are at "Government of X" not "Governance of X". Is there some reason to make an exception here? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This article isn't exactly about the current government of the Gaza Strip, but more about the governance of the Gaza Strip throughout the years. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Already decided by majority of editors that this article is not only about the current Hamas Government (see Talk:Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip#Rename), but about the administration. Alternatively, a new article on Hamas Government in Gaza Strip should be split.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article is about the government, right?

This article is about the government right? So why is there so much stuff about the Gaza Strip in general rather then the government specifically, e.g. the "Demographics" and "Health" sections? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, apparently this is not about the government, and this is why majority of editors opposed mine and later your proposals for rename. This article is about "governance of gaza strip" (which is a notable issue) and technically also describes the geopolitical entity within Gaza Strip, currently ruled by Hamas.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I currently split an article on Hamas government of 2012.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Governance, government, whatever. My point stands, why is there so much stuff about the Gaza Strip in general rather then the governance specifically. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you make a very valid point. If this article is about the governance of the Gaza Strip, then those sections you mention have no place here. I think the point of it was to show the territory's "culture," "demographics", "education". etc. under Hamas rule. But that's information for another article. I would support its removal. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly we can move the infobox from here to the Gaza Strip, but we cannot have two articles with infoboxes - it is confusing.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

We could remove the stuff from this articles infobox that's not about the Governance, if you want to discuss the Gaza Strip infobox, discuss that at Talk:Gaza_Strip#Infobox. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the governance of the Strip so it doesn't make sense that it gets the infobox of a geographic entity. The Gaza Strip on the other hand is an entity and unlike the West Bank, it's no longer occupied or disputed. However, the Gaza Strip shouldn't be treated as separate from the quasi-state of Palestine. Unless the Hamas govt. officially secedes, I think treating it as such would be premature. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i tend to agree - we better put move the geopolitical infobox to "Gaza Strip" article, but then it means that Gaza Strip is separate from Palestinian "quasi-state" in West Bank.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Now, when the infobox was decided to be moved to "Gaza Strip" article, maybe there is a point to rename this article to "Government of the Gaza Strip" or "Government at the Gaza Strip"? (without specifying "Hamas" in the title, but simply wikilinking the relevant article "Hamas government of 2012")Greyshark09 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"hamas government" vs "hamas administration"

Should we call the Hamas regime the "Hamas Government in Gaza"/"Hamas Government" or "Hamas administration in Gaza"/"Hamas administration". This article can't seam to make up it's mind as to which terms it wants to use.

Aslo the "government" terms [17] [18] seam to be much more commonly used then the "administration" terms. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been any response here, so per the Google results I guess we're going with "Hamas Government in Gaza". Something I noticed that was rather odd, Hamas Government in Gaza was redirected to Hamas government of 2012, but that articles just about the Hamas Gaza's 2012 administration. This is article is about the Hamas Government in Gaza, tough it's scope is somewhat broader then just the HGIG. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, it started as 'Hamas administration' but following the 2007 armed conflict, it became a de facto 'Hamas Government'. ATM we have two governments neither one recognize the other, both claiming to represent all the Palestinians and territories and both represent only one side. The one is West Bank is the only one who enjoys/ed the enjoys international support and accessibility(PLO effort, organization and its recognition is de facto the 'State of palestine' and vice versa). While in Gaza its the only government that actually have sovereignty over a definite territory. In the last 5 years there were talks but no real progress to reconciliate(the rift between the "old guard" and the "young guard" might be to much) and even though PLO position post the UN vote has been improved I am not sure it has the upper hand.--Mor2 (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hamas and Fatah claim rule over the same area, just as N. Korea and S. Korea claim whole Korea. This article name is fine, mayve just a bit corrected to "Government of the Gaza Strip".Greyshark09 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing that we should change the article name. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, there are very few articles saying "government of <entity>", but rather "politics of <entity>". I hence think this one should be named accordingly Politics of the Gaza Strip just like Politics of the Palestinian National Authority, Politics of Egypt and Politics of Israel.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Korea analogy doesn't work. The PNA is not a state nor a country, it is a body for local self-government in a transitory period. The two disputing cabinets do not make territorial claims, and the dispute between Ramallah and Gaza PNA cabinets is detached from the issue of statebuilding. Contrary to the fiction being peddled in Wikipedia and elsewhere, Hamas has never stated that it wishes to separate Gaza from the PNA. And for what it is worth the two bodies do maintain somewhat functional but frosty relationship, manifested by the fact that funding for PNA activities in Gaza Strip are channelled through the Ramallah PNA structures. Thus the PNA is still one, albeit having contenders for the throne. I think the article would need to be reworked quite heavily, weeding out a lot of 'Politics of x-country' material and focusing of the Gaza-based cabinet itself (such as listing of ministers). --Soman (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Soman's take. The Korea situation should stop being brought up, it's a completely different situation. Among other things, the Ramallah govt. still pays the salaries of tens of thousands of civil workers in Gaza and the Hamas party leadership has recently repeated their assertion that Gaza is inseparable from any Palestinian state. They have lent their support to Abbas' UN bid for observer state status and both sides still officially advocate unity. The reconciliation deal has not been discarded but its implementation has been delayed for political bickering. Wikipedia could only state as much. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes PNA is not a state nor a country, but a state is a set of governing institutions and such PNA is very much tied into the statebuilding process. Just the same 'State of Palestine' is obviously not the PLO and yet it is de facto the same, as all recognition of the state came through PLO work. Based on PLO recognition as the Representative of the Palestinian people and compliance with the question of Palestine, its declaration was accepted. Based on its agreements the PLO, they gained partial sovereignty and through PNA they showed ability to administer the territories, gaining more and more recognition. Skipping ahead even the latest UN vote, reaffirmed that the PLO is the only Palestinian representative. So Hamas and Fatah is more than just semantics. --Mor2 (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Economy section

@Mor2, why did you restore the economic section? It has been moved to Gaza Strip article per common agreement that this article shall be used to describe the government system of Gaza, rather than other issues.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not the economic section, but subsection within it, that had relevant information to Governance of gaza, during our time period. As for the rest of the sections you moved [19] I agree completely with the move.--Mor2 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We certainly also need to move also sections on demographics and religion, which have little to do with government and politics.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Governance of the Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111233151/http://www.cogat.idf.il/Sip_Storage/FILES/1/2181.pdf to http://www.cogat.idf.il/Sip_Storage/FILES/1/2181.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726062323/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_special_easing_the_blockade_2011_03_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_special_easing_the_blockade_2011_03_english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

history of the governance

The article covers rather "contemporary" governance of the gaza strip; it does not cover previous governing bodies and/or entities; as the strip is a distinct area since 1948, the article is missing egyptian, israeli and hardly palestinian governance prior to 2007.--Uwe a (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Hamas government in Gaza.GreyShark (dibra) 22:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Typo

"later took over" should probably be "latter took over"

Darn shame editing isn't allowed on this. Hate to take up space on a more sophisticated discussion but there are still uninformed people thinking Wikipedia isn't a real resource and typos don't help debunk their snobbish canards.

ISIL

Dead link Islamic State in Gaza Link to Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.38.253 (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

I propose adding a subsection under "2016 Hamas administration." The section, titled "2019 protests," will read:

In 2019, hundreds of Gaza residents protested on the streets against grim living conditions. Hamas accused the Palestinian Authority of fomenting these protests; the Palestinian Authority denied the charge. Responding to the protests, Hamas arrested and beat protestors and journalists. The Palestinian Authority news organization Wafa published pictures of Atef Abu Saif, the spokesman for Fatah in Gaza; the pictures showed Saif, bruised and bandaged, clothed in blood-stained garments and lying on a hospital bed. The Independent Commission for Human Rights in Gaza alleged that Hamas dispersed 25 protests and arrested 1,000 people, 300 of whom remained in custody. Protest "organizers say the protests will continue until Hamas cancels taxes on dozens of goods, creates a national employment program and releases everyone who has been arrested in the crackdown." E8QLx4L (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

See 2019 Gaza economic protests.GreyShark (dibra) 13:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Levivich 00:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Yahya Sinwar

The page does not even mention Yahya Sinwar, who is supposedly the "de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip"?! Kidburla (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Current Budget Friedman line

"According to OpEd Columnist Thomas Friedman of the NY Times, Gaza has been woefully mismanaged by Hamas, Gaza is pumping all its drinking water from its coastal aquifer at triple its renewable rate of recharge."

a) "OpEd Columnist Thomas Friedman of the NY Times" -> NYT opinion columnist Thomas Friedman

b) "has been mismanaged by Hamas, Gaza is pumping" -> "has been mismanaged by Hamas. Gaza is pumping" (comma splice)

c) Is Friedman the source of the claim regarding the aquifer? The column is paywalled but it seems likely he's citing a different source for that. Could a better source be used for that claim?

d) Why is this line in the "Current Budget" section? It makes no mention of budgetary concerns and is unrelated to the preceding content. (Also, it would be nice if a section called "Current" was more up to date than 2012-2014 but that's another can of worms.)

Apex Editor (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede: 2017

Dan Palraz, 25stargeneral, Mauls, Omnipaedista, Longhornsg, Laggan Boy, Yue, {JamesMLane, Julle, Inteloff Currently the lede's last sentence is "In February 2017, Ismail Haniyeh was replaced as leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip by Yahya Sinwar." but the citation leads to "The Gaza Strip 11 November 2017 Updated: 26 February 2023" archived edition: "Background on the Gaza Strip Published: 1 Jan 2011 Updated: 14 Jul 2014" neither of which mention Haniyeh or Sinwar. Mcljlm (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I just fixed this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

2012 fuel crisis block quote

Most of the quote starting "Responded with another citizen of Rafah" doesn't make sense. The link in the citation doesn't lead to anything with the translated quote. Mcljlm (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

References