The first paragraph is not very good. Why have it at all? It is a self-serving Israeli-centric definition/history. It uses Israeli-centric terms, e.g., Judea and samaria... It refers to "terrorism" -- the israeli term for the palestinian resistance violence -- a more accurate and less charged term. Furthermore, it slights the political platform of the Hams -- it has evolved, yet it has not sold out as the PLO has, i.e., it doesnt want to accept a eventual solution based only on the West Bank/Gaza -- this wouldnt accomodate the interests/rights of the millions of refugees created during the waves of ethnic cleansing in 1948, and smaller ones throughout the latter years.
See also this item for a disinfopedic definition: www.counterpunch.org/rooij0912.html
It states: Hamas Catch all opposition group. An Islamic opposition group fostered by the Israeli secret services during the first intifada. Its purpose was to undermine the support for the PLO. Since then it has become an effective opposition force opposed to Arafat's sell out. Anyone voicing criticism of the "peace process" is automatically classed as a Hamas supporter. Several leading intellectuals who objected to Arafat's shoddy approach to negotiations earned themselves a Hamas label by both Israelis and the Palestinian "authority".
Where is it that HAMAS was started by the Israelis? According to the Wikipedia article it was funded directly and indirectly by Saudia Arabia and Syria, and the later quote simply says it was "fostered". That's not quite the same as started. While there would be a certain amount of irony (ala many of America's misadventures, such as the muhjahadeen and Saddam) for it to bite the hand that feeds, I just don't see the evidence. It doesn't particuarly make sense to foster division that may radicalize a group of people when you're trying to eventually deport them all.
Again, this has been documented by (1) Israel Shahak (2) Robert Fisk and (3) Uri Avnery. It was also present in the Israeli press some years ago -- convineintly forgotten now. It was all part of a divide and rule thingie -- discrediting or undermining the secular political groups, to replace them with "islamists" that also have been properly disparaged during the last decade.