Talk:Hamas

RfC about ‘acceptance of the 1967 borders’: is our lead statement correct?

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 our previous 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).

Please, choose option #A, #B or #C

Discussion

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 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@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 article Hamas. 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 in Talk: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 section Hamas#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]

Voting

  • #A: Reliable Source (RS) on topic Hamas, 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 former Mandatory Palestine.
    That is why Wikipedia in the lead section of Hamas 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 and must 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, that since 2005, in agreements with Fatah, 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.)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Seurat 2019, pp. 14–17, 47: "[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 by Mahmoud al-Zahar (…) [p.15](…) The latter solution, also decribed as ‘historical’, emphasizes the sacred aspect of Palestine as a waqf (…) 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 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. (…) [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"

Corriebertus (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing three citations (Seurat etc.)

@Alaexis: Recently (21Nov2025), I’ve made an edit to the lead sentence about “acquiescing to 1967 borders”, because – as I motivated on talk page – I thought (and still think) that the sentence attributes a statement to three referenced authors (Seurat etc.) that those three citations don’t contain, thus is a misrepresentation of those 3 citations. This edit was reverted by Smallangryplanet(22Nov2025), because he claimed that my own new version was a misrepresentation: on talk page he explained(22Nov), that it is essential for him, that our paraphrasing of the Seurat quote(and 2 more quotes) tells that Hamas in a 2005 agreement has abandoned their ambition to create an Islamic state in all Mandatory Palestine.

This revert was re-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]

Self-contradicting statements from a contributor

@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.

In a discussion, begun on 12Dec2024, now stored in Archive30, I argued(1Jan2025) that the Wikipedia lead section—in the sentence about ‘acquiescing…’—unjustly says, that Hamas in agreeements in 2005–07 has dropped their goal of seeking a state in all Mandatory Palestine. This was mysteriously denied by you on 8Jan2025: “the lead [does not say that], The lead says that they began acquiescing to the 1967 borders(…)”, you stated.

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 and now stored in Archive31, you (Smallangryplanet) did react, on 30Jan2025, on that reply of mine of 17Jan2025, but only by ignoring(30Jan25) the grammatical 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 Palestine but since agreeements in 2005–07 settling for a narrower (final) goal, thus acquiescing to that narrower (final) goal?

But your stance towards that lead sentence even gets contradictory, when in a later discussion, after my editing the lead sentence on 21Nov2025, you clearly state(22Nov) that Wikipedia cannot assert that Hamas retains the objective of a state in all Mnd Palestine because according to the quotes of Seurat+Roy+Baconi – paraphrased in our sentence with ‘acquiescing’ – Hamas in 2005 abandoned their ambition for a state in ‘all Mnd Palestine’: the opposite of what you stated on 8Jan2025! These statements of yours, of 8Jan2025 and of 22Nov2025, can’t be both true! So: which of these two is your true opinion, and which was a mistake? I don’t think we can be expected, in editing discussions, to take account of an editor who contradicts himself. --Corriebertus (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response, I was AFK for a bit. I don't see how my comment in January 2025 contradicts what I said in November 2025. In the first one I am talking about what the lead says 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 topics WP: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]

"Allegations of Antisemitism"

The title of the section Hamas#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: Wikipedia section titles, like article titles, are meant to be 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]

The statement about ‘1967 borders’

On 21Nov2025, 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 proposal on talk page on 7 Nov 2025 where it had received no negative reaction. During the edit on 21Nov, I placed my slightly reworded motivation 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 to discuss 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 their short-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’) because in the Wikipedia context this would directly refer to the final 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 of WP: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 to seek a consensus through open discussion (thus gaming the system). The other one seems to use tricks to make it seem he actually did give a reason for reverting (thus gaming the system). I’ve today criticized them on their user talk pages (User talk:Raskolnikov.Rev and User 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 on Talk: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]

Interesting. Another source that supports your "long-term/short-term" goals distinction is Løvlie (Løvlie F. Questioning the Secular-Religious Cleavage in Palestinian Politics: Comparing Fatah and Hamas. Politics and Religion. 2014;7(1):100-121. doi:10.1017/S1755048313000527).
"Maybe the most important development in Hamas’s ideology is the implicit recognition of Israel in calling for a temporary two-state solution based on the 1967 borders (Hroub 2000, 73–86).33 While Hamas’s version of the two-state solution is worded as a temporary measure, defended ideologically through the Islamic concept of hudna, or longterm truce, it implies an acknowledgment of Israel’s long-term existence."
Løvlie doesn't seem to take the long-term goal very seriously, but as a factual question of how Hamas present acceptance of the 1967 borders I think it corroborates what you're saying. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuelshraga: It’s not ‘my’ distinction of long-term versus short-term, it is the Reliable Source Seurat explaining that distinction. And ofcourse it is also Reliable Source Imad Alsoos explaining it, in his 2021 article (freely accessible) that is being referenced, since a rather long time, in section Hamas#Policies towards Israel and Palestine, second sentence. The point of this talk section, is though, that in Oct 2023 some Wikipedia editor – either deliberately or inadvertently – has ‘taken a wrong turn’ by stating in the lead section what we still today can read there. And the other point of this talk section is, that at least two editors (named above), for whatever reason, appear to block correcting our article in that respect, by using all fair and unfair means imaginable (see above). So, what Wikipedia needs, is just one or two (‘new, fresh’) colleagues who dare to plainly say: “I support the edit proposal of Corriebertus given on talk page 14 Feb 2026”. By the way, Samuelshraga, what do you mean with “taking the long-term goal seriously”? --Corriebertus (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Seurat 2019, pp. 17–19: "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."
  2. ^ Seurat 2019, pp. 14–17 and 47: "[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 by Mahmoud al-Zahar (…) [p.15](…) The latter solution, also decribed as ‘historical’, emphasizes the sacred aspect of Palestine as a waqf (…) 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 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. (…)
    [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"

Corriebertus (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

British or American English?

I'm seeing both "organisation" and "organization" in the article; what is the primary flavor/flavour of English used here? —Opecuted (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas