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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @Corriebertus misrepresented everything, including the claim that I did not explain my challenge of his edit. This has been part of a recurring pattern. The last time this happened, Corrie did what he did again just now, and edited the lede in a way that is identical in content to what it was before, making it entirely superfluous, and contradicting his own stated motivations for the edit in the talk (which, as detailed in the prior discussions linked below, do not reflect what the RS says).
- So I will repeat what I said in the frivolous ANI case he made against @Smallangryplanet and myself on this subject:
- I responded both in my edit summary and in the talk explaining why your edit did not align with standard Wikipedia policy and you need to obtain consensus for it. You did not reply on the talk page, and instead brought the case here while presenting the dispute in a way that does not accurately reflect the core issue. To start with, @Corriebertus has for years attempted to change the Hamas page in order to remove references to what the consensus in RS states: that Hamas has, on multiple occasions, accepted the 1967 borders, and that this is understood by those sources as consistent with the two-state framework. Corriebertus disputes this interpretation, arguing that such statements from Hamas are inherently unreliable, and that any RS including the widely recognized scholars of Hamas stating otherwise are merely repeating Hamas propaganda.
- Editors have raised concerns regarding this, noting that it does not align with Wikipedia policy: we follow what the consensus among RS is, and we do not dismiss sources based on personal assessments that they are "spreading Hamas propaganda". Some of the earlier discussions on this point are linked in my recent talk reply, and @Smallangryplanet provided further links in their responses here and here.
- There is a more fundamental issue with Corriebertus' edit as noted in my reply to him on the talk page. The content of the edit was entirely redundant and unrelated to the argument provided for it:
- The content of your revision is virtually identical to what was already stated before. You changed: "It began acquiescing to 1967 borders in the agreements it signed with Fatah in 2005, 2006 and 2007" to "As of 2005, in agreements with Fatah, Hamas has expressed willingness to accept a state in the 1967 borders."
- I don't understand what the purpose of this edit even is per your own reasoning. It is entirely superfluous.
- Also, as I stated in my edit summary restoring the stable version, we already make the point that you claim your edit accounts for regarding the long-term goal in the same paragraph: "Hamas's repeated offers of a truce (for a period of 10–100 years) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as consistent with a two-state solution, while others state that Hamas retains the long-term objective of establishing one state in former Mandatory Palestine."
- Another editor, the one who had restored the edit, also defended the edit based on the same argumentation that has nothing to do with the actual content of the edit! And just now Corriebertus has reprimanded him for doing so and being off-topic. So it's a very strange situation where an argument is being made to justify an edit which content-wise doesn't have anything to do with the argument being made for it.
- This has been a recurring pattern in interactions with Corriebertus. I encourage other editors to review the posts of his he linked on the Hamas page, as well as the discussions on Talk:2017 Hamas charter, and consider whether the explanations provided are clear or actionable. As other editors have pointed out, he keeps posting elaborate walls of text that are inscrutable, then making contentious edits on the basis of them, and then when it gets challenged he responds with more walls of text, and when that inevitably does not lead to the consensus he desires he becomes frustrated, leaves talk messages on my and other pages with further walls of text, and then after a period of quiet the same cycle repeats itself. This is going back years now on those two pages with many editors.
- This is why I and others have repeatedly advised @Corriebertus to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and not WP:STONEWALL when they are unable to obtain consensus for their desired edit. Unfortunately, this has not resolved the issue and the cycle continues. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
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 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)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
