You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of yourcommon.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
You are not anextended-confirmed user, soyou must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make anedit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs,RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You must be logged-in andextended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except formaking edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except inlimited circumstances)
This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"should be avoided or used with care. Editors discussing the use of these terms are advised to familiarize themselves with theguideline, and discuss objections at therelevant talkpage, not here. If you feel this article represents an exception, then that discussion properly belongs here.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcrime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofInternational relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIslam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofLebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofOrganizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographicPalestine region, thePalestinian people and theState of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visitingthe project page, where you can add your name to thelist of members where you can contribute to thediscussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Yaakov Menken (August 6, 2024)."Wikipedia hates Israel and Jews".Jewish News Syndicate. RetrievedAugust 6, 2024.Regarding Hamas itself, however, Wikipedia merely says that "authors have characterized" (emphasis added) the Hamas charter as genocidal, although Hamas leaders themselves repeatedly declare that genocide against the Jewish nation is the group's very purpose and mission.
"Wikipedia bans eight editors, six of them anti-Israel".Jewish News Syndicate. January 28, 2025. RetrievedJanuary 28, 2025.One of the banned editors removed mention of Hamas's 1988 charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, from an article on the Islamic terrorist group, six weeks after the massacre.
"Editing for Hate: How Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish Bias Undermines Wikipedia's Neutrality".Anti-Defamation League. March 18, 2025. RetrievedMarch 18, 2025.The Arabic-language page for Hamas, perhaps even more egregiously than the English-language version, glorifies the terrorist organization, minimizes its atrocities, and, in places, appears to function as propaganda that does not abide by Wikipedia's NPOV requirements or its content source standards.
Hamas is a formerfeatured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check thearchive.
Text and/or other creative content fromHamas was copied or moved intoCriticism of Hamas withthis edit on March 25, 2017. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Recently, there have been disagreements (edits and reverts) as to whether the lead sentence: “It began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005,…”, is correct or should be changed. The latest talk discussion seemed to stall with two people for option A (see below) and two for option B. The issue is complex because it involves: (a) Citations of experts which might be understood differently; (b) Our paraphrasing of those citations that might be correct, incorrect, or too vague; (c) Grammatical interdependence between the chosen paraphrasing and the rest of the Wikipedia context.Corriebertus (talk)14:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read ourprevious RfC (Nov.2023) about ‘accepting the 1967 borders’, which concluded that “Hamas accepts the 1967 borders”, but not how that should be phrased in the article or what it does or does not implicate; and which also concluded that “the 1967 borders are seen as consistent with a "two-state solution"” but not by whom or since which date or how the term “two-state solution” should be read (it is a vague term, currently(Dec.2025) Wikipedia does not present any concrete or authoritative definition of it).
Sorry for taking so long to reply to this RfC after I was notified by a bot. Could someone please share a the full list of sources being used by both sides of the discussion and the relevant quotes? I don't want to give an answer until that's been done.
@FropFrop: The issue of this RfC is a sentence in the lead section, that directly refers to four given (short) quotes from three books: you can easily find them in our articleHamas. I presume, if Wikipedia directly bases one statement on four quotes, the question to be answered, is, whether those four given quotes are correctly paraphrased. For answering that question, it seems to me of no importance what other sources perhaps say over the same topic (as those ‘other sources’ are currently not directly referenced as corroboration of the Wikipedia statement). The only other “relevant quote” to be considered in this question, seems to me the quote I am giving in this RfC – which is simply an enlarging of the quote of Seurat, in other words simply a larger quote from the book of Seurat that already is referenced in the Wikipedia lead sentence: this quote does not involve a new “source”, it only gives broader context to the short Seurat quote, from that same book. Nevertheless, as you can see inTalk:Hamas/Archive 34#Motivation for edit lead section (‘1967 borders’) date 21Nov2025, Alaexis refers to five concrete other sources, and Smallangryplanet vaguely refers to “some” Reliable Sources cited in sectionHamas#Recognition of Israel (which can be any of the roughly fourty sources referenced there) and to “Beverley Milton-Edwards and Alastaire Crooke, ‘Elusive Ingredient: Hamas and the Peace Process’, Journal of Palestinian Studies 33, no. 4 (2004): 39–52”, of which Smp gives excerpts of its pages 45 and 49-50. --Corriebertus (talk)17:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
#A: Reliable Source (RS) on topicHamas, Leila Seurat, when speaking (in her 2019 book, page 17)[1] of Hamas’s “acceptance of the 1967 borders… [in] agreements… since 2005…” (and other RS with similar statements)mean to say that Hamas in such agreements has abandoned their ambition to create an Islamic state in all of formerMandatory Palestine. That is why Wikipedia in the lead section ofHamas clearly asserts, referring to those quotes of Seurat, Baconi and Roy, that since 2005 Hamas has abandoned their quest for that larger state (“acquiescing to .. 2005 ..” as new Hamas position opposed to their “initially...” goal). Asserting in Wikipedia that Hamas since 2005 retains its long-term objective would then imply that Hamas’s acceptance of the 1967 borders in 2005 is invalidated or insincere; and attributing that false implication of insincerity to Leila Seurat (and other RS)—by suggesting that, according to Seurat (and others), Hamas retained that larger goal in 2005—would be misrepresenting Seurat (and others). (This is the explanation for the lead sentence “It began acquiescing…” as given by editor@Smallangryplanet: on 22Nov2025 and fully endorsed by@Raskolnikov.Rev: on 22 and 24 Nov2025.)
#B: Reliable Source Seurat, in her book of 2019 on pages 14-16,[1] speaks of a Hamas doctrine since the early 1990s consisting of a ‘short-term policy’ and a ‘long-term solution’ (p.15)(also described as ‘historical’); The short-term tactics aim at creating an authority on a specific territory, as the start to fulfil the strategic (long-term) goal: Islamic sovereignty over all of Palestine; In that light (p.16), some Hamas leaders since the 1990s were not opposed to negotiations with Israel for a long-lasting truce. Rather suddenly on page 17,[1] Seurat writes that “since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders (…) [which was] integral part of (…) the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners’ Document in 2006, [etc.]”. She does not explicitly say that this “acceptance” means abandoning Hamas’s long-term strategic goal or its ‘double doctrine’ she describes on page 14. The next time Seurat mentions that 2006 Prisoners’ Document, on page 47,[1] she writes that it “implicitly recognized the validity of the June 1967 borders” and that for most Hamas leaders this “did not diminish by any means the validity and legitimacy of its historical strategy (…) contrary to (…) Fatah, for whom the building of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders constitutes the ultimate goal”. Therefore, we would do source Seurat no justice, by paraphrasing her words (‘acceptance’, ‘validity’, etc.) as if they imply Hamas’s abandoning of their long-term goal around 2005/2006/2007. But also the citations of Baconi and Roy in our lead section do not speak of abandoning that long-term goal. (People who would point at Roy’s mention of “two-state solution” (tss) to prove the opposite, make one mistake: we have no guarantee that Roy uses the term ‘tss’ in the sense of giving up the larger goal.) Therefore,our lead sentence: “It began…”, makes unjust attributions to those 3 authors andmust be replaced (or removed). Ofcourse there are thousand options for a replacing sentence (or even to remove and not replace it), and I’ll gladly give my proposal for a better one, but one option is, to say here, thatsince 2005, in agreements withFatah, Hamas has accepted the idea of creating a Palestinian state on the June 1967 borders. (P.S. Smp and Rsk will tell you, that I consider Seurat a propagandist, and that I’m framing Hamas as unreliable. That first thing has indeed been my suspicion of Seurat, which I take back now. Framing Hamas is not my purpose in this RfC, but correctly presenting what RS say of Hamas.)
^abcdSeurat 2019, pp. 14–17, 47 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSeurat2019 (help): "[p.14] Since the early 1990s, Hamas began to formulate its foreign policy discourse in a way very different from the binary vision of the Charter. (…) At the heart of this new doctrine is a distinction between ‘short-term policy’ and the ‘long-term solution’. The former, often described as an ‘interim’ solution, was put forward for the first time in 1988 byMahmoud al-Zahar (…) [p.15](…) The latter solution, also decribed as ‘historical’, emphasizes the sacred aspect of Palestine as awaqf (…) This dialectics between tactics (short term) and strategy (long term) is present in an informal manner in many documents and articles written by figures affiliated to Hamas. The aim is to create on a specific territory (buq‘a) an authority (Sulta) … [as] the start of the fulfilment of Hamas’ strategic goals: … the re-establishment of Islamic sovereignty over all of Palestine. The concept of truce (hudna) (…) permits implementing the short-term solution without discarding the historical one (…) [p.16]Simultaneously, some leaders consider that, in case Hamas gathers sufficient forces for real negotiations and upon the condition that Israelis accept concessions to Palestinian people, they are not opposed to the principle of negotiation for a long-lasting truce (hudna tawîla). (…) [p.17](…) Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas andFatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners' Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012. (…) [p.47](…) Hamas signed, together with other Palestinian factions, the Prisoners’ Document (…) This text implicitly recognized the validity of the June 1967 borders (…) However, most of Hamas’ leaders tried to minimize the importance of these pragmatic declarations; (…) they did not diminish by any means the validity and legitimacy of its historical strategy. (…) This policy would be contrary to that of Fatah, for whom the building of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders constitutes the ultimate goal"
This revert wasre-reverted by you(22Nov), but your given motivation(in edit summary) was too vague and off-topic for me to understand. You only said (on talk page) that “We have many sources that state that the long-term goals remain the same(…)”, but the disputed issue in the edit quarrel between me and Smallangryplanet was only: what is a correct paraphrasing of those specific three given quotes of Roy+Seurat+Baconi? Could you please say, in your opinion, what a correct paraphrasing of those three specific citations would be, with regard to the ‘1967 borders’? --Corriebertus (talk)23:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet: In discussions around the lead sentence saying: “…[Hamas] acquiescing to 1967 borders…”, you have appeared to be presenting two different, contradicting, lines of thought for defending the correctness of that Wikipedia sentence/statement.
I challenged you on 17Jan2025 about that (strange) remark of yours:I pointed(17Jan25) at the grammatical structure of the lead sentence; but you quit the discussion and didn’t answer me.In another talk discussion though, begun on 29Nov2024 andnow stored in Archive31, you (Smallangryplanet) did react, on 30Jan2025, on that reply of mine of 17Jan2025, but onlyby ignoring(30Jan25) thegrammatical arguments I had made on 17Jan25. So, I still wonder, what our current lead sentence about ‘acquiescing’ actually is saying, in your view, if it is NOT grammatically, simply and plainly, reacting on the preceding sentence: Hamas initially aiming for all Mandatory Palestinebut since agreeements in 2005–07 settling for a narrower (final) goal, thus acquiescing to that narrower (final) goal?
Sorry for the delayed response, I was AFK for a bit. I don't see how mycomment in January 2025 contradicts what I said inNovember 2025. In the first one I am talking about what the leadsays and in the latter I am explaining that just because you disagree personally with what the lead says does not mean you can unilaterally or via endless talk page topicsWP:BLUDGEON your way into changing what RS report.
I think maybe you need to decide if you're concerned about a syntactic issue (asking, essentially, "does this sentence grammatically refer to the 1967 borders or all of Mandatory Palestine?") or a semantic one ("has Hamas abandoned the goal of Mandatory Palestine?"). As I and others have pointed out many times over the last however many years, consensus and RS disagree with your positions on both points.Smallangryplanet (talk)09:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet: Sorry for my late reply, too. I was busy, among other things with buying a new computer (the old one stopped serving me). There are (vague) things in your posting here, that I don’t quite follow. Nevertheless I’d like to hear from you: has Hamas abandoned their [final] goal of [a state in all of] Mandatory Palestine? You contend here, that there is “consensus” on this point in the Wikipedia community; personally I cannot find proof of that consensus; but if you say it exists you can surely tell me what that consensus is (and perhaps where I find proof of that)? --Corriebertus (talk)11:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
The title of the sectionHamas#Allegations_of_antisemitism should be renamed from "Allegations of antisemitism" to "Antisemitism". The current phrasing frames Hamas' antisemitism as disputed. But as far as can tell, there is no serious dispute as to whether Hamas has a history of antisemitism. The only dispute is whether they are still antisemitic.
Additionally, the sentence "Hamas has been accused of promoting Holocaust denial" should be rewritten as "Hamas has promoted Holocaust denial". While Hamas may have backtracked, the fact that they have promoted holocaust denial at some points doesn't seem to be in dispute.Benboy250 (talk)05:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Wikipediasection titles, like article titles, are meant tobe a recognizable name or description of the topic, balancing the criteria of being natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. The section title "Allegations of antisemitism" remains accurate/precise/consistent given documented changes in official statements and scholarly debate about the continuity, scope, and the current status of Hamas' positions. The sentence that Hamas has been accused of Holocaust denial is also accurate and should not be put in wikivoice unless there is firm consensus in the secondary sourcing, which there isn't - as the section itself makes clear.Smallangryplanet (talk)12:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about antisemitism. There are genuine disputes about whether Hamas remains antisemitic and the section title should reflect that.
But I disagree with you on the issue of Hamas' holocaust denial
The article cites multiple sources which claim that Hamas has engaged in Holocaust denial. A 2009 Reuters article says the following:
Branding the Nazi genocide of the Jews "a lie invented by the Zionists,"
The BBC says the following:
Hamas spokesmen have previously described the Holocaust as fabricated
Defending Truth: Legal and Psychological Aspects of Holocaust Denial says the following:
Holocaust denial has grown rapidly in Muslim countries, including American allies Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia all of which receive significant U.S. economic and military aid. Members of the Syrian and Iranian governments, as well as Hizbollah [sic] and the Palestinian political group Hamas, openly publish and promote such claims
There are two sources the section cites which you could argue go the other way. The section cites a 2008 op-ed in the Guardian ("Hamas condemns the Holocaust") from a Hamas official that affirms the existence of the Holocaust. And similarly, the section cites a Jerusalem Post article quoting a Hamas statement which says that "Gaza today is Auschwitz of the 21st century". Neither of the articles even mention previous statements about the Holocaust by Hamas. At most, these articles show that Hamas no longer denies the Holocaust, not that they haven't promoted Holocaust denial.Benboy250 (talk)22:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On21Nov2025, I’ve edited the lead section, replacing: “It began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007”, with: “As of 2005, in agreements with Fatah, Hamas has expressed willingness to accept a state in the 1967 borders”.
I had already explained and motivated this edit proposalon talk page on 7 Nov 2025 where it had received no negative reaction. During the edit on 21Nov, I placed my slightly rewordedmotivation for the edit again on the talk page, on 21Nov2025. Two editors (@Raskolnikov.Rev:,@Smallangryplanet:) without clearly given reason reverted my edit on 22Nov (while@Alaexis: in between restored the edit) but apparently refused todiscuss the disagreement on talk page, in search of a consensus. Nevertheless, while my explanation of 21Nov seems to have been unclear to Raskolnikov, I’ll explain it now slightly differently, this third time. In addition to replacing the sentence as shown above, I now propose to also replace the current reference to “Seurat 2019, pp.17–19”[1] with this ref[2] with an enlarged quote from that book (“Seurat 2019, pp. 14–17 and 47”).
The current Wikipedia lead sentence: “It began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007”, explicitly referring to citations of three authors(Roy, Baconi,Seurat),because of it being placed after sentence: “Hamas has promoted Palestinian nationalism in an Islamic context and initially sought a state in all of former Mandatory Palestine”, clearly (though implicitly) conveys to the reader that Hamas’s final goal has been adapted, diminished, in accords in 2005–07 with Fatah, as compared to their final goal as (“initially”) declared in 1988.
However, this alleged diminishing of the Hamas goal in 2005 is not being reported in those given four ref citations from three authors (and I very much doubt if any other Reliable Source makes this radical statement). What I see described on page 17 of the book of Seurat (and more or less in the quotes of Roy and Baconi) is: Hamas’s “acceptance of the 1967 borders” since 2005. This “acceptance…”, especially if isolated from the context in the book, would seem a rather vague statement of mrs. Seurat.On the preceding pages (14–17) in her book though, we read that since the 1990s, Hamas follows a long-term goal (a state in ‘all of Palestine’) and a short-term goal (a state on a smaller territory as first step). Quite suddenly, on page 17, Seurat mentions “[Hamas’] acceptance of the 1967 borders” in 2005. The reader at that point has the liberty to apply those words either to Hamas’final goal or to theirshort-term goal because both have then already been mentioned in Seurat’s text. An important difference between Seurat’s book and our Wikipedia article is however, that our article has not yet mentioned any ‘short-term goal’ when we first mention the ‘1967 borders’ in the lead section; therefore, our article cannot shortly repeat Seurat’s words (‘accepting [or acquiescing to] the 1967 borders’) becausein the Wikipedia context this would directly refer to thefinal Hamas goal, which would be wrong because that’s not how Seurat uses those words. But if we choose the paraphrasing which I propose here today (and have proposed in the talk sections of 7 and 21Nov2025), the reader of the Wikipedia text has the liberty again to interpret that ‘state in the 1967 borders’ as either Hamas’s final or their intermediate goal, which therefore is a more correct representation of Seurat’s words.
Two editors shortly after each other have reverted my 21Nov edit, but without giving a clear and substantial reason. This violates the policy ofWP:CONSENSUS. One of these two seems to have a rather long record of similar unclear (autocratic) reverts and of deliberately avoiding talk sections like this that aim toseek a consensus through open discussion (thusgaming the system). The other one seems to use tricks to make it seem he actually did give a reason for reverting (thusgaming the system). I’ve today criticized them on their user talk pages (User talk:Raskolnikov.Rev andUser talk:Smallangryplanet), and invited them to show up in this new discussion, to help bring clarity into our differences of understanding, of interpretation, or whatever lies at the bottom of this editing disagreement. If they don’t show up, and no discussion at all arises here, I will ofcourse repeat my edit of 21Nov2025 (but with the enlarged citation from source Seurat, see above), referring to this talk section as motivation. (The edit summary in that case could be: ‘The motivation for this edit is rather complicated, therefore placed onTalk:Hamas#The statement about ‘1967 borders’ on 14Feb2026, inviting for discussion in advance, which hasn’t come. A summary of that motivation might be: The old sentence (..acquiescing..), because of it being placed directly after sentence 'Hamas...initially sought…', implies that Hamas in 2005 has restricted their ultimate goal to only a state in 1967 borders, but this is not the statement of the 3 quoted ref sources.’.) --Corriebertus (talk)11:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Seurat 2019, pp. 17–19 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSeurat2019 (help): "Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas and Fatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners' Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012."
^Seurat 2019, pp. 14–17 and 47 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSeurat2019 (help): "[p.14] Since the early 1990s, Hamas began to formulate its foreign policy discourse in a way very different from the binary vision of the Charter. (…) At the heart of this new doctrine is a distinction between ‘short-term policy’ and the ‘long-term solution’. The former, often described as an ‘interim’ solution, was put forward for the first time in 1988 byMahmoud al-Zahar (…) [p.15](…) The latter solution, also decribed as ‘historical’, emphasizes the sacred aspect of Palestine as awaqf (…) This dialectics between tactics (short term) and strategy (long term) is present in an informal manner in many documents and articles written by figures affiliated to Hamas. The aim is to create on a specific territory (buq‘a) an authority (Sulta) … [as] the start of the fulfilment of Hamas’ strategic goals: … the re-establishment of Islamic sovereignty over all of Palestine. The concept of truce (hudna) (…) permits implementing the short-term solution without discarding the historical one (…) [p.16]Simultaneously, some leaders consider that, in case Hamas gathers sufficient forces for real negotiations and upon the condition that Israelis accept concessions to Palestinian people, they are not opposed to the principle of negotiation for a long-lasting truce (hudna tawîla). (…) [p.17](…) Indeed, since 2006, Hamas has unceasingly highlighted its acceptance of the 1967 borders, as well as accords signed by the PLO and Israel. This position has been an integral part of reconciliation agreements between Hamas andFatah since 2005: the Cairo Agreement in 2005, the Prisoners' Document in 2006, the Mecca Agreement in 2007 and finally the Cairo and Doha Agreements in 2011 and 2012. (…) [p.47](…) Hamas signed, together with other Palestinian factions, the Prisoners’ Document (…) This text implicitly recognized the validity of the June 1967 borders (…) However, most of Hamas’ leaders tried to minimize the importance of these pragmatic declarations; (…) they did not diminish by any means the validity and legitimacy of its historical strategy. (…) This policy would be contrary to that of Fatah, for whom the building of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders constitutes the ultimate goal"
level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Not done: Wikipediasection titles, like article titles, are meant to
