Talk:Hudna

Untitled

Unfortunately there are activists who think that Wikipedia is the place they can fight for their favorite side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Wikipedians who are trying to create an accurate and informative encyclopedia wish that the activists would bugger off.

• "It is signed when the Arab side is weak but as soon they are on the upper hand, they break the treaty and attack.
• a symbol of treachery and lyings.

These and other things on the page are so far away from Wikipedia standards that they can't be allowed to remain. There is already a better description of the 2003 Hudna on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Zero 22:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed?

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? If so, what are the areas of dispute? Jayjg 16:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wholly agree that this should not be a forum for expressing bias on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but this entry is seriously lacking in the ancient historical perspective of the word. Most of the current disagreement on the term 'hudna' stems from the 'permanence' and/or 'intent' of the proposed treaty or ceasefire. Open for some debate is the issue of whether or not "hudnas" are intended as a "ceasefire until re-armament". Given that the longevity and underlying aims of the ceasefire are in question, it is far more than just a simple oversight to mention the historical hudna between Mohmammed and the Quraysh tribe without mentioning that this "first hudna" was in fact violated by Mohammed's armies and resulted in the decimation of the Quraysh. This omission is so glaring that it can only be seen as supportive of the Arab side in the dispute. - Sohonyc 16:44, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC)

The very nature of the article requires a disputed logo, in my opinion. Although nothing appears blatantly POV at first glance today, that does not guarantee that tomorrow the article will not express severe bias in one way or the other. Michael Safyan 17:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Eyal Erlich

What is this reference doing in there? Why would it be relevant? Is the implication here that Hamas and Islamic Jihad got the idea from Erlich? - Mustafaa 04:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was rather interesting to discover that the first proposal of a hudna, apparently, was by this guy: [1] [2]. Whether Hamas and Islamic Jihad got the idea from him, I don't know; it would be interesting to research further. - Mustafaa 04:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As it stands, the article gives a false impression about the hudna, that it was Israeli initiated. Jayjg 05:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought "unilaterally" would cover that, but the new wording should hopefully clarify any ambiguity. - Mustafaa 05:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good edit. Jayjg 13:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the "Hudna" was a result of pressure from Abu Mazen and Egypt, and not an initiative of the Islamist terrorist groups. MathKnight 22:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Civilians

"Israel has never targetted *civilians*; Hamas and Islamic Jihad preferentially do so)" is doubly POV. The fact that Israel claims not to target civilians is scarcely adequate reason to believe they do not - especially given that they seem to regard stone-throwing kids as "combatants", which is a somewhat different definition of civilian than others tend to use, and the much larger number of civilian deaths at Israeli than Palestinian hands. Hamas and Islamic Jihad certainly do target civilians, as well as military, but that they target them "preferentially" is not clear at all. - Mustafaa 06:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If accurately reflecting the facts is "POV", then so be it. The "stone throwing kids" phrase is a propaganda myth which does not reflect the reality on the ground, and certainly has nothing to do with Palestinian tactics in the Oslo war. Exhaustive studies have shown that Israel targets combatants, while Hamas preferentially targets civilians, in terms of the number of attacks made on them, and the numbers of deaths and casualties suffered by them. Jayjg 13:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that the "exhaustive study" you refer to is the one that showed up in the news a while ago[3]. I too remember seeing this reported - and remember noting that even according to these guys, whose side is extremely obvious, there are still more Palestinian civilians killed by Israel than vice versa. Contrary to its conclusion, that leaves plenty of room for significant amounts of deliberate targeting of civilians. Of course, I'd love to see a neutral group's analysis, but I'm not aware of any having been made. - Mustafaa 05:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here's the actual link: [4] . In this case the total number of civilians killed is not even remotely a measure of whether they are deliberately targetted; the study makes it clear that 50% of the Palestinian deaths are undeniably combatants, vs. 20% of the Israeli deaths. All the other measures (females killed, elderly killed etc.) lead to the same conclusion. There is no denying that Hamas et al actively and deliberately target civilians; their methods, targets, and gleeful claims of responsibility bely any claim to the contrary. Israel, however, on any number of well documented occasions, has been shown to use tactics which attempt to minimize civilian deaths. Is it possible to prove that not one civilian was ever targetted by Israel? Of course not, there is always ambiguity in these situations, claims, counter-claims, etc. But in general Israeli and Palestinian policy vis a vis civilians are complete opposites. Many Palestinian groups do not even recognize the category "civilian" as applying to any Israeli. Jayjg 07:35, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nor is there any denying that Hamas target soldiers. I do give Israel credit for at least claiming not to target civilians - better that than openly encouraging your fighters to make no distinction - but even if you accept the ICT claims, that's still a very substantial proportion of Palestinian civilian deaths - 40% of the "known" ones. And should this figure be accepted? The argument is full of holes - are more Palestinian males killed because Israel's attacking combatants, or because Palestinian women go out much less than Israeli ones? They claim that "Israeli noncombatants over the last 23 months have been killed essentially at random", yet their own graphs show a strong peak at the ages 15-29. Note also the absence of any way of taking into account failed operations: unsurprisingly, Palestinian attacks on military targets are rather less likely to succeed than attacks on civilian ones. And finally, their definition has some interesting loopholes:

The status of “probable combatant” has also been assigned to people who knowingly took some action which would lead to increased danger, such as entering an area in which fighting was going on or which security officials had declared off-limits.

However, a civilian who encounters a terror attack in progress and draws his/her weapon in an attempt to stop or prevent the attack is a combatant once the weapon is out of its holster.

Nor do we know exactly what method they choose for resolving cases of disagreeing reports about the incident. - Mustafaa 09:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hamas targets Jews; they do not recognize the categories of "soldier" or "civilian" as applying to Jews. Israel does more than claiming not to target civilians; it actively attempts to avoid civilian deaths. I don't understand how you calculate 40% of "known" deaths as being civilian, nor do I see why the figures should not be accepted. The issue of whether or not women go out more is a red herring; when an army is around, non-combatants stay inside, or avoid it. It appears that those who do avoid the army don't get killed, confirming the notion that the Israeli army is attempting to avoid civilian deaths. If it was trying to do the opposite, it would simply bomb areas where many civilians congregate (as Hamas et all regularly do). The fact that the Israeli deaths are skewed to the 15-29 age group does indicate that they are out more (and reflects demographics). However, in this case it *is* significant. What is the difference? An army is a big, obvious thing, which can easily be avoided by anyone who wants to; unlike, for example, a suicide bomber. As for the "loopholes", they seem quite reasonable to me; why would you think they weren't? Jayjg 21:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"I don't understand how you calculate 40% of "known" deaths as being civilian": have a look at the graph at the top of the article you linked to[[5]]. 21.3% of the Palestinian deaths are in the "unknown"category; if, as you said, 50% of Palestinian deaths are combatants, that makes 50/80 = 62.5% combatants, and thus about 40% non-combatants. Actually, their estimate is less than that - 46.7% full combatants - but on the other hand they also have 7.5% "probable" (to use their distinctly suspect word) combatants. - Mustafaa 01:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Have you check out this photoes? [6] , [7] , [8] (if it doesn't work, just go the http://www.gettyimages.com , then to Editorial-->News and click "gaza" in the search bar. Care you explain why children are standing near a Hamas planting explosive charges? MathKnight 21:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Factual correction

"Hamas called off the hudna after the Israeli army killed Muhammad Seeder on August 14 and Isma'il Abu-Shanab on 21 August, two high-ranking Hamas leaders. [9]"
In fact, Seeder was actualy a Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader, not Hamas. Secondly, the Hudna was already de-facto broken in a series of suicide bombings climaxed in August 19 Jerusalem bus 2 massacre which killed 23 people, among them 7 children. MathKnight 10:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK that's a good point. Actually can you give a credible source that Seeder was an Islamic Jihad leader? Also Do you have any credible source for the claim that there was a series of suicide bombings? Also, I think we should present the events in sequence. - pir 10:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Series of suicide bombings during the Hudna: from wiki, and you can compare in the MFA website.
2. Seeder Islamic Jihad: CNN [10] , [11], [12].

MathKnight 12:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. So, according to these sources, the timeline was:

• August 8, the IDF killed 2 Hamas members
• 12 August: A 43-year-old Israeli was murdered by a teenaged Palestinian suicide bomber who detonated himself in a Rosh Ha'ayin supermarket.
• August 14 the IDF killed Muhammad Seeder
• August 19 Jerusalem bus 2 massacre which killed 23 people.
• August 21 the IDF killed Isma'il Abu-Shanab

Each killing by one side was followed by a killing by the other side. Therefore it is misleading to talk about a series from a perspective outside of the conflict. - pir 09:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Israel did not promised to stop hunting terrorists. On the contrary. That's why it was declared "unliteraly".
2. There is no reference to August 8, on the orginal reference I gave you.
3. The Hudna started on the end of June. There were two succesful terrorist attacks then.
4. Also note that the intifada hudna started on the end of June. MathKnight 12:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Yes I know that. What is your point? I was saying it's misleading to talk about a "series".
2. Yes, sorry, my sentence above was not clear. I meant, if we put together the information from the article and the page you gave, this is the timeline we get.
3. The first time the hudna was de facto broken was on 12. August. If you disagree with this, please provide evidence.
4. how this this pertain to the question under debate? - pir 16:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Maybe series is not the right term, but the point it there were attacks during it.
2. O.K.
3. Check the source I gave you - a month earlier. The hudna was valid also in July but yet - there were terror attacks that month.
4. My mistake. It should be written: "Also note that the hudna started on the end of June." "Hudna", instead of "intifada". MathKnight 17:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1&3. None of these attacks were carried out by Hamas, according to your page on Wiki. Also, none of the entries are sourced. - pir 18:24, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Earlier years pages were not citated but weren't under such dispute as the 2004 page. Anyway, each attack on Israelis with fatalities can be traced in the Israeli MFA site. MathKnight 18:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

None of these attacks were carried out by Hamas. (also, since the Israeli government is party to the conflict, the MFA cannot be considered to be a neutral source). - pir 10:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One of them was carried by the Islamic Jihad. The MFA is may be not neutral but as for listing Israeli casualties it is a reliable source. MathKnight 13:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which means that Hamas rigorously observed the hudna until two Hamas members were killed by the IDF, and it is factually incorrect to state that "Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah continued to target Israeli civilians". QED. - pir 14:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Guardian article

This article seems to me worse than useless since it doesn't even discuss what the concept of a "hudna" is in any detail. I'm not interested in fixing that because a/ I don't know much about it and b/ the opposition of those whose own personal views of what Hamas intends by it is impossible to overcome in this work. However, I read an article in the Guardian (by Timothy Garton Ash, I think) that discussed it, in which it was pointed out, rightly or wrongly, that offering a "hudna" implied recognition of Israel. It was interesting because the description of those who pooh-pooh the hudna so closely fitted those who are anti it here. It's a pity I couldn't find the link. Anyway, I hope someone will at some point give this some attention. Perhaps those more knowledgeable than me can address the issues in the article: that a hudna is only offered to legitimate contestants over whatever is being contested, for example, or that it is intended to give breathing space for resolution. Whether this is Hamas's actual aim, the concept surely deserves more exploration here. Grace Note 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Hudna. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2416620?view=Eircomnet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

Source for speech in Johannesberg mosque by Yasser Araft: ...The latest quote cuts directly to the issue of trust by suggesting that the Palestine Liberation Organization's peace agreement with Israel might soon be broken for a new round of fighting. 132.71.160.34 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gangster8192 12:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

References