It would be highly controversial to claim that any organisation has a valid mandate to represent the Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Israeli government, in order to avoid angering a significant part of the their electorate, cannot offer a firm opinion on certain questions, such as where the borders of Israel are. And everyone's very fond of "stategic ambiguity" and "plausible deniability" and all that stuff.
So your facts end up being something like: News outlet N claimed at time T1 that person P, claiming to represent organisation X, stated at time T2 something that can be accurately translated into language L as: ...
That's good. Wikipedia already discourages "weasel words" and things like that, so adding specificity and information provenance would be a bonus.
Tell me. Who gets to decide what is a "fact" and what is an "opinion".
An Israeli and a Palestinian would give you a different answer, just as one example.