巴勒斯坦自治政府 — 哈瑪斯

摘要

Hamas won the 2006 legislative election and took control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007 after fighting with Fatah-aligned forces; the PA president dismissed the Hamas-led government, and the PA has governed in parts of the West Bank since. No reconciliation agreement since has reunified the two. The US plan endorsed by Resolution 2803 excludes Hamas from any governance role and places Gaza's interim administration with the Board of Peace until the PA "has satisfactorily completed its reform program" (OP2). The technocratic committee the Board formed is made up, its report says, of commissioners "approved by consensus among Palestinian factions"; it has not entered Gaza. The Board opened a liaison office with the PA on 20 February 2026. In the West Bank the PA ran its own operation against armed formations in Jenin camp from December 2024 to January 2025, in which OHCHR records nine residents and six PA security personnel killed. On 10 October 2026 the PA president postponed presidential and legislative elections to 11 September 2027, with the PLO Executive Committee citing, among other reasons, the barring of electoral officials from Gaza.

為何重要

Who governs Gaza after the war is the political question the 2025 arrangements leave open, and the Palestinian answer is split. The PA's path back runs through reform and the Board; Hamas's influence runs through the weapons it has not handed over; and with no election since 2006 neither holds a current electoral mandate.

相關事件

• 哈瑪斯贏得巴勒斯坦立法委員會選舉 2006年1月25日

  政治

• 哈瑪斯控制加薩走廊 2007年6月

  政治 · 軍事

• 第2803號決議為和平委員會與國際穩定部隊背書 2025年11月17日

  外交 · 政治

• 巴勒斯坦總統與立法選舉延至2027年9月 2026年10月10日

  政治

仍然未知的事項

• Reconciliation agreements between Fatah and Hamas have been signed several times since 2007; none was read for this record, and none is shown to be in force.
• The extent of Hamas's de facto control west of the Yellow Line (Gaza), and the PA's actual reach into Gaza's civil administration, are not established.

證據同樣支持的其他解讀

• The relationship is also one of rival claimants to the same national representation who have repeatedly negotiated unity; "adversarial" here describes the governing split, not open armed conflict.

列出這些解讀，是因為該紀錄本身的評估並非其來源所允許的唯一評估 — 而不是對上述評估的保留。