Jump to content

Talk:Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

"it was shut down by the U.S. government following the discovery that it was funding Hamas." An Executive Order from George W. Bush alleged that the HLF was funding Hamas. This statement is overly-simplistic and incredibly misleading. I would say "following the allegations that..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.225.232 (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The post against Steve Emerson

[edit]

Putting a citation as, "(CBS News, 4/19/95)" is not a proper citation..... Link it to an article or video clip saying that. Also, the statement, "It should be noted that Emerson has displayed a consistent anti-Muslim bias in his reporting and his credibility has been called into question on several occasions." has no citation or reference at all...... The stuff this guy posted is like me saying that Bill Gate's favorite ice cream is chocolate chip cookie dough. (ABC News, 8/4/92) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbanerobi (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infocom

[edit]

WHAT ties are there between Holy Land and Infocom? WhisperToMe 20:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some are at this link: [1], and the article now contains some of them. You can find more with Google searches with the names of both organizations, perhaps also restricting the search to "site:.gov". (SEWilco 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Terrorist Organization

[edit]

It seems to me that the first sentence or paragraph of this article should make the point that the HLF is a terrorist organization rather than some sort of a charity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.195.25 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 31 January 2006

Done. You could have edited it. (SEWilco 05:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Also should be made clear that the bulk of the charges stem from the charity buying children backpacks and soccer balls in Hamas-controlled territories. Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.102.215 (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Association for Palestine

[edit]

I would like to see some proof that Holy Land Foundation "is a daughter organization of Islamic Association for Palestine." I don't think this is correct. It is also quite inflammatory, as exemplified by the comment above about HLF being a "terrorist organization." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.72.52 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 May 2006

As you think association with the IAP is inflammatory, you must think there is something wrong with the IAP. The HLF has been specifically designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, so was the preceding comment inflamed by the IAP? (SEWilco 05:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Rewrite Needed

[edit]

This article is poorly written--needs complete rewrite to be brought up to date. Read this new article, the first published abt. HLF in many months: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holy18jun18,1,2606858.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.3.119 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 20 June 2006

Justice Dept 2004

[edit]

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development

Update:

July 27, 2004- The U.S. Justice Department handed down a 42-count indictment against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an organization long suspected of supporting terrorists by funneling money to Hamas. The federal indictment named the Foundation and its top leaders in a conspiracy to provide aid to a terrorist organization and the families of suicide terrorists. ... (copyrighted material removed October 18, 2006) ... Hit this site to get details of indictment: http://www.adl.org/israel/holyland.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.107.34.118 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 July 2006

Last call on tags

[edit]

I'm going to take the tags off in a few days if there is not discusion on this talk page as to specifically what the problems are.Hypnosadist 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the tags off while you were making that comment. There are more sources given now. (SEWilco 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

A couple of paragraphs from a newspaper article were inserted in December 2006, so I'm reverting to the last non-copyright violating version. Andjam 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion

[edit]

A paragraph got deleted without an explanation. Why was it deleted? Andjam 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two different trials

[edit]

of HLF and some of its personnel. One in 2004 and one underway now (August 2007). The article should clarify this.

LDH 05:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other note. The edit that alleges gross errors by the FBI came from this IP

76.185.197.198

and that IP is in Herndon, Virginia. :D

LDH 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistrial?

[edit]

Didn't I read that the federal case against the Holy Land Foundation ended in a mistrial? There's this and this from the Dallas Morning News.

Surprised no one updated this article. -- 75.143.96.101 05:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's buried near the end of the second section, but it's in there. -- 75.143.96.101 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Holy land foundation.gif

[edit]

Image:Holy land foundation.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dead links, NPOV, etc

[edit]

The links to the "experts" questioning the validity of the case are dead, not to mention the section gives the article a good-sized amount of one-sided material. Therefore, I have removed it. The second problem is in the External links. Several of the links all revert back to HLF website/blog. One should be sufficient.98.212.227.161 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the LATimes article isn't "dead", it is just moved to the site archive. It was published in the print edition of a very respected newspaper, so is a fine reliable source. Also the direct quotes from experts do seem valuable. I do agree that the amount quoted does tend to unbalance, but trim and rephrase, don't just cut it out wholesale, along with the excellent source. Sources are very important. --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the whole article and I think I got all the dead links. Naked links were changed into proper references. Added an infobox. I hope the non-free use media rationale is acceptable this time for the logo. Frotz (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America

[edit]

This section is UNDUE. It has little relevance, and i will trim it substantially to reflect its relevance to this article. It belongs elsewhere. Upper lima 65 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section does not belong under this entry. The Explanatory Memorandum was one piece of evidence in a lengthy trial of the Holy Land Foundation and five individual defendants. The section should be shortened and moved to the article on the Muslim Brotherhood.Manuela21 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting

[edit]

I would like to include a section under under "4. 2008 trial" called "4.1 2008 trial evidence" followed by "4.2 the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting".

The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting is notable both for what was said, and who attended.

During the second trial, the jury heard a tape recording of what has come to be known as the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting.

" From October 2-3, 1993, key members of the U.S. Palestine Committee came together at a Marriott Courtyard hotel in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a conference that was monitored and recorded by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents."[1] [2]

The Palestine Committee was the Muslim Brotherhood created Hamas support network in the U.S. headed by Mousa Abu Marzook. - Lara Burns page 83

The meeting was called in response to the signing of the Oslo Accords, a peace pact between Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Hamas' rival.

Among the attendees of this meeting were, HLF defendants former HLF Chief Executive Officer Shruki Abu Baker, and former HLF Treasurer Ghassan Elashi.

Also in attendance were future Council on American Islamic Relations co founders Nihad Awad, and Omar Ahmed.


Among the things discussed at the meeting were :

Attendees were asked not to say Hamas, but "Samah" instead.

Hamas controlled charities described as "ours"

The subverting, or "derailing" of the Oslo Peace plan so that jihad against Israel could continue.

How to continue to support Hamas, in the event Hamas was declared a terror entity.

The need for a front, or covert organization whose connections to Hamas were not so "conspicuous".


Kristina Williams, one of the dissenting jurors in the first trial, stated that Shruki Abu Baker's statement, "War is deceit", which was made during the '93 meeting, was one of the determining factors in her decision to vote for a "guilty" verdict.[3]

FBI Special Agent Lara Burns testified that CAIR was a "result" of the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting. page 148[4]

The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting is evidence that Hamas is active in the United States, and for years ran their jihad war against Israel from this country.



2602:306:BCE6:B440:A1C3:4D85:1B16:F60B (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript of the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2039.pdf

The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting: A Roadmap for Future Muslim Brotherhood Actions in the U.S.”, Josh Lefkowitz, http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2039.pdf

2602:306:BCE6:B440:A1C3:4D85:1B16:F60B (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lefkowitz, Josh. "The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting: A Roadmap for Future Muslim Brotherhood Actions in the U.S" (PDF). NEFA.
  2. ^ "Government's Trial Breif" (PDF). United States District Court.
  3. ^ "" interview with juror Kristina Williams about the bullying and intimidation that dominated the Holy Land Foundation Hamas-support trial in 2007."". the investagative project.
  4. ^ "Testimony of FBI Special Agent Lara Burns" (PDF).

Roscelese, please explain your reverts

[edit]

In the past 30 hours you have reverted five times [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6], exceeding the WP:3RR by two reverts. You have yet to explain any of your reverts beyond a simple citation of WP:POV and WP:BLP. That not good enough. You're going to have to prove your assertions. -- Frotz(talk) 20:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a part of WP:BLP that you are confused about? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I call bullshit on this one. To whatever extent BLP is applicable it comes from a public record of a trial. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, it's almost as though BLP requires that we use secondary sources and write in a non-partisan fashion! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the violations of WP:POV and WP:BLP and try to do it without resorting to personal abuse. You already got WP:3RR. Do you want to try for WP:PERSONAL as well? -- Frotz(talk) 02:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edit included claims about living people that are false on their face (eg. a misquote that I had to hunt down) and that in any event are not cited to reliable secondary sources. I'm concerned that you seem to believe directing someone to a relevant policy constitutes a personal attack. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The personal attacks were the repeated assumptions that I am a novice at this and your general condescending tone. Once again, what are the violations? Please be specific. -- Frotz(talk) 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is clear that you can't use primary sources for controversial claims about living people (eg. saying that Awad or Abu Baker were present at a Hamas meeting or said such and such a thing). Additionally, not even the primary source states that Abu Baker (whose name is misspelt) said that quote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. I'll go through the text and track down secondaries. Next time, please be more specific about why you're removing content. -- Frotz(talk) 22:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Roscelese is in error. The primary source(which I cited)is the transcript of the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting. This is easily found online, in a word searchable form. There you will find Abu Baker saying "War is deception". There was a great deal of evidence submitted during the Holy Land Foundation trial that puts Awad, Abu Baker, Elashi, Ahmed at the meeting. That Roscelese is disputing this, is HIGHLY revealing. I have to object to this editors behavior. Livingengine1 (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Roscelese why did you remove the information about the Boim's? Why are you doing this? Livingengine1 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to insert content that violates BLP. If you wish to insert content that does not violate BLP, try to do so without violating policy at the same time. Then, that content will stand a greater chance of being left in. Not my job to pick through your edit to find crumbs that can stay in the article when there's so much that can't. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AS near as I can tell there is no prohibition to using primary sources at Wikipedia. They are allowed as long as they are not misused. You are not only using secondary sources, you are using them in a way to misinform the readership. You are abusing the violation of BLP to justify your erroneous entries at Wikipedia.

The use of primary sources that are accurate is preferable to secondary sources which misinform the readers.

You are using violation of BLP as a way to enter your politics into Wikipedia entries. This is why your edits are always wrong in the same way. I am asking you to stop doing this, and start behaving in a responsible manner, or I am going to start getting other people involved.

Please tell me specifically, in clear language, why did you change the information about the Boim case, Roscelese? Livingengine1 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now this page is protected. Why? Was there an announcement? If Roscelese was the one asking for the page to be protected, why wasn't there an announcement? I really have to object. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I called attention to the 3RR violation by Roscelese here. The article is protected for two weeks. -- Frotz(talk) 07:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet and the Primary sources beef

[edit]

I have removed all links to primary sources, as requested by Binksternet, the rest of the section is supported by the NEFA article, a secondary source. Livingengine1 (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, if your NEMA source was really a secondary source, your text was totally based off of the previous primary sources. It's not the primary sources that are the problem but the actual text which you derived from primary sources. Second, the NEMA source is evidence in a court case so it is primary, not secondary. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it is NEFA, not NEMA which IS a secondary source. All statements made in this section are supported by the NEFA piece, which is a secondary source. The NEFA piece is NOT evidence in a court case. Editor Binkersnet is not reading before making his reverts, and is engaging in an edit war. I am asking you to stop doing this right now, and to start working together to improve this page. This is not a "highly contentious" edit, it is factual, and supported by primary, and secondary sources. There is no misuse of any sources here, primary, or otherwise. There is no violation of any Wikipedia policy here. Your personal politics are irrelevant here.
If you have further objections to this page, please discuss them here, rather than making ill informed, and capricious reverts.
Stop edit waring, and start co operating, or your reputation will suffer as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to edit war; your hands are not clean. You have not given a satisfying rebuttal to my assertion that http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2039.pdf is a primary source. It is evidence used in court, not independent analysis by someone unconnected to the court case. Perhaps you were thinking of some other reference, one which is not in the article? I'm open to looking at another reliable source but the PDF is not it. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brinkersnet. I see by your WP profile you have been here along time, and made a lot of contributions. I would much, much rather work with you than waste time with revert wars. Please accept that I am not trying to be obtuse, or balking, but I do not see the offending PDF in the section I am looking at(1993 Philadelphia Meeting). Can you help me find it? Livingengine1 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look closely at the reference to Josh Lefkowitz of NEFA, you will see that the PDF link is as follows: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2039.pdf
This PDF is the wrong link, and it sent me the wrong direction. The proper link for the Lefkowitz report is https://web.archive.org/web/20110109172840/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/93Phillyfinal.pdf.
Lefkowitz is an expert on the topic, here is his Flashpoint biography: https://flashpoint-intel.com/about.php.
So now we can talk about the Wikipedia wording that has been inserted to tell the reader about the 1993 meeting. The wording is still based largely on the primary sources that you removed. The text that should be in the article should instead be based largely on the Lefkowitz report, with other secondary sources to supplement it. That means we should try not to use youtube video interviews which are primary sources. You'll notice that FBI agent Blair does not appear in the Lefkowitz report, so that bit is out.
The following sentence is not supported at all by Lefkowitz, whose conclusion is much more limited:
The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting is evidence that Hamas is active in the United States, and for years ran their jihad war against Israel from this country.
Clearly, such a conclusion must be removed as a violation of WP:No original research.
Finally, the staccato style of the section should be presented as prose. It does not fit with the rest of the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thank you, Bink. This is something I can work with. I will try again, with your objections in mind after the protection has been lifted. I am sure we can work this out. Again thank you for being specific about your objections. This will help me make changes to this article that we can both agree to. This was a big help.

Livingengine1 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelse, Please Explain Your Reverts

[edit]

Roscelese you are in violation of Wikipedia policy. "To be clear, at Wikipedia, "ownership behavior" — even subtle ways of acting proprietary about entries — is prohibited." Please discuss your revert on the discussion page before making changes. This is NOT your private Wikipedia page. Do not engage in an edit war again. Please drop the attitude, and personal politics. If you have edits in mind on this page I want to be involved. Please discuss it with me, on this page BEFORE making your edits, reverts.

In conclusion, please explain your reverts.Livingengine1 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked to you before about throwing around policy words without understanding what they mean, and I suggest you revisit that advice. In the meantime, until you understand WP policy, you shouldn't be editing controversial articles, and certainly not edit-warring in them. You may not insert interpretations of primary sources with the goal of including your personal POV. There is really nothing more to be said, but I'm feeling nice right now, so I'll point you backwards to where I explained another specific problem three months ago: "The edit included claims about living people that are false on their face (eg. a misquote that I had to hunt down) and that in any event are not cited to reliable secondary sources...BLP is clear that you can't use primary sources for controversial claims about living people." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese, you've been caught several times doing things that boil down to WP:IDLI and it's starting to look like you have an agenda that smells of whitewash. Rather than complain about any perceived lack of secondary sources, how about improving the article by seeking out good references? That's what I'm doing. I hope you will have the decency to back off while I comb through and verify citations. -- Frotz(talk) 03:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it is not my job to find references for BLP-violating content added by others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem with this content you keep deleting? The two chunks you keep deleting are about a trial, its proceedings, and its outcome. Except perhaps for a transcript of the 1993 meeting, all citations in there are from secondary sources. How secondary is sufficient for you? Regarding WP:BLP, it seems that you are invoking WP:BLPCRIME in particular. This does not apply because the people described here have indeed been convicted of the crimes relevant to this article. You might have a point if the crimes were something irrelevant. -- Frotz(talk) 00:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, "except perhaps for a transcript of the 1993 meeting" is not negligible, since almost everything you're adding back is cited to it (or to an interview with a juror, holy hell) where it is cited at all. If you are interested in having content of this ilk in the article, I strongly recommend that you start from scratch using reliable secondary sources, rather than adding back all the policy-violating content with a random secondary source thrown in for lip service. (As to your assumption, no. That has to do with omitting any material even if properly sourced while judgment is pending; what I've been pointing out repeatedly, on the contrary, is that this content is not adequately sourced.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The edit included claims about living people that are false on their face (eg. a misquote that I had to hunt down) and that in any event are not cited to reliable secondary sources...BLP is clear that you can't use primary sources for controversial claims about living people." - Roscelese

Can Roscelese tell us what misquote she is referring to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On page 138 one see read Abu Baker saying four times that "War is deception". Really, the lady doth protest too much. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2039.pdf Livingengine1 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investive Terrorism Project, the website you keep citing, has been accused of manipulating facts and smearing muslim americans by the Southern Poverty Law Center in the past[1]. Please cite some other sources. Also, you have to use secondary sources to build an article- not primary ones. Thereandnot (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation by the Southern Poverty Law Center isn't particularly damning given their frequent use of hyperbole and lumping of religious organizations in with the KKK and their ilk. -- Frotz(talk) 08:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/03/23/steve-emerson-backing-king-hearings-pushes-misleading-statistic-on-muslim-terrorism/

Boim III

[edit]

The article has been updated to include the Boim III court decision, i.e the reinstatement of the 156 million dollar award. Livingengine1 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem, Livingengine1, is that your edit is poorly formatted: it's all quotes, for instance, and the first paragraph isn't cited at all--plus, the last sentence is a direct quote but has three footnotes--and the quote occurs only in the first citation. In addition, not all of its sources are unquestionably acceptable. This one, from the Washington Legal Foundation, is probably OK in terms of facts, but one could question their summary in tone and word choice. I urge you to rewrite the section by paraphrasing what's found in the Seventh Circuit Review, the Rowe article you cited. I won't revert since this isn't all that contentious from what I can tell, but other editors may disagree. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting Rewrite

[edit]

Here is a proposal for a re-write of the "1993 Philadelphia Meeting" Section.

I would like to include a section under "4. 2008 trial" called "4.1 2008 trial evidence" followed by "4.2 the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting". The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting is notable both for what was said, and who attended. During the second trial, the jury heard a tape recording of what has come to be known as the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting. " From October 2-3, 1993, key members of the U.S. Palestine Committee came together at a Marriott Courtyard hotel in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a conference that was monitored and recorded by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents." pg 2 https://web.archive.org/web/20110109172840/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/93Phillyfinal.pdf " Federal prosecutors say the IAP, UASR and HLF the were created by the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestinian Committee in the United States "to comprehensively address Hamas' needs."" http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/106 The meeting was called in response to the signing of the Oslo Accords, a peace pact between Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Hamas' rival. Among the attendees of this meeting were, HLF defendants former HLF Chief Executive Officer Shruki Abu Baker, and former HLF Treasurer Ghassan Elashi. Also in attendance were future Council on American Islamic Relations co founders Nihad Awad, and Omar Ahmed.

Among the things discussed at the meeting were : Attendees were asked not to say Hamas, but "Samah" instead. pg 10 Hamas controlled charities described as "ours" pg 11. The subverting, or "derailing" of the Oslo Peace plan so that jihad against Israel could continue. pg 12-13 How to continue to support Hamas, in the event Hamas was declared a terror entity. pg 4 The need for a front, or covert organization whose connections to Hamas were not so "conspicuous". pg 20. " Prosecutor Barry Jonas asked [FBI Special Agent Lara]Burns whether any groups formed after the Philadelphia gathering fit this mold. “CAIR,” she[FBI Special Agent Lara Burns] said. " http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2008/10/fbi-cair-is-a-front-group-and.html/

"The dozens of pages of transcripts from the 1993 Philadelphia conference provide a veritable roadmap of the strategies HLF, IAP, and CAIR would employ in the coming years to establish themselves as main stream organizations in the U.S. The key officials in these organizations display an acute awareness of the language they must use, the institutions they must “infiltrate,” and the manner in which they must exploit the media and Congress to achieve their goals." Lefkowitz pg 25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We would need reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to need to be more specific about what you mean. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition organizations and individuals won't cut it. Do you have reliable sources that discuss the trial or evidence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a very difficult thing for you to work with other people, but I have to insist that you be more forthcoming as to your objections to the Lefkowtiz piece. Livingengine1 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Opposition organizations and individuals won't cut it." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Roscelese on this one. Thereandnot (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. 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:

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) 02:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check from terrorist organization HLF to Islamic organization CAIR.jpg

[edit]

I suggest removing the image from the article for the following reasons: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context per Wikipedia's policy MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE

  • The article contains no substantive information regarding any specific relevancy between CAIR and Holy Land Foundation.
  • The image of the check doesn't prove anything without the reverse side also being included, which will show whether or not it was negotiated and into which account. Anyone with a home printer and some check stock from any office supply store could produce a check made payable to or from anyone. At a minimum, the source for the image of the check needs to be cited.

Please share your feedback if you have anything to add. Djrun (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Documentary date

[edit]

The page says that the documentary was produced on February 2022 and directed by Mohammad Omar. However, IMDb says the documentary was released in 2016. In addition, Al-Jazeerah's YouTube also has the documentary posted on Oct 5, 2016. Both IMDb and YouTube have Mohammad Omar as the director. 47.189.41.245 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging Islamic Association of Palestine into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Its clearly a Wikipedia:POVFORK of this page (all of the citations are from a pro-Israeli think tank fellow, Matthew Levitt), and it clearly discusses the same trial and much of the optics of the trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge – I guess I'll start with the first vote. Seems they both talk at length about the trial and allegations that defendents in the trial were using Holy Land Foundation/Islamic Association as fronts for Hamas. This article is clearly more Neutral POV, the other is clearly not, but has been able to slip under the radar by using the name of the other organization named in the suit. There is little to no real info in the Islamic Association article about exactly what it did different. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are separate orgs, both of which appear to be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my merge request. I still think both are secretly just talking about the trial from different POVFORKs, but haven't gotten much traction for either deleting IAP or merging. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development&oldid=1254571976"