The significant risks of internal divisions within both Israel and Hamas present profound and continuous threats to the durability of any ceasefire or peace initiative, making renewed hostilities a perpetual possibility.

These internal fractures often empower hardline elements, erode the authority of negotiating parties, and introduce major instability into the process of de-escalation, post-conflict governance, and long-term security arrangements.

Internal Divisions within Israel: The Threat from the Political Right and Public Opinion

Internal political divisions within Israel can critically undermine the will and capacity of its government to sustain ceasefires, engage in substantive negotiations, or commit to a long-term plan for Gaza's future that involves concessions.

The Hardline Political Bloc

A primary risk comes from the dominance of the political right and far-right factions within the Israeli governing coalition, which often holds a hardline stance on security and territorial issues.

• Veto on Concessions: Far-right ministers and parties frequently oppose agreements that do not explicitly involve the total destruction of Hamas and complete, unconditional demilitarization of Gaza, often threatening to collapse the government if a ceasefire is seen as too lenient or if it does not explicitly allow for a prolonged or permanent Israeli security presence in the Gaza Strip. The necessity of maintaining a fragile coalition often forces the Prime Minister to adopt a maximalist position, which complicates and delays agreements.

• The "Mr. Security" Narrative: The Prime Minister, particularly under intense domestic scrutiny following significant security failures, is often compelled to prioritize the image of being "Mr. Security." This political pressure makes it difficult to make the strategic concessions—such as the release of a large number of Palestinian prisoners or the withdrawal of forces without ironclad guarantees—that are often essential to brokering and maintaining a durable ceasefire and hostage deal. A leader who is perceived to have backed down or failed to achieve all war aims faces a high risk of being ousted.

• Contested Post-War Vision: There is a deep lack of consensus within the Israeli political establishment regarding the post-war governance of Gaza. While some factions might tolerate an internationally or regionally backed technocratic administration, others demand an indefinite Israeli security presence or even the establishment of settlements. This internal disarray about the "day after" provides no stable diplomatic endpoint, thereby making the cessation of hostilities appear merely temporary to the other side.

The Role of Public and Societal Fragmentation

The Israeli public, while often united during periods of active conflict, harbors deep divisions that influence political decision-making and the sustainability of peace.

• Hostage Families vs. Security Hardliners: Intense public pressure from the families of hostages often drives the government to prioritize immediate hostage releases, sometimes at the expense of its stated military goal of totally eradicating Hamas. Conversely, hardline security advocates and a segment of the public demand that the military campaign must continue until Hamas's capability to govern and attack is fully and verifiably dismantled, viewing any agreement that leaves the group intact as a fundamental security risk. This clash of priorities creates a domestic policy paralysis that leads to highly fragile, often partial, agreements.

• Shifting Political Center: While there is a desire among many Israelis for stability, the overall political landscape has shifted significantly to the right. Even opposition parties that might criticize the government's handling of the war largely agree on the core security objectives of dismantling Hamas and ensuring Israel's deterrence capability. This lack of a strong, unified, pro-negotiation center or left-wing alternative means that the political debate consistently favors the more hawkish approach, raising the threshold for any successful diplomatic outcome.

Internal Divisions within Hamas: The Threat of Decentralization and Radicalization

Hamas's internal structure is not monolithic; it is characterized by divisions between its internal (Gaza-based) leadership, its external (Doha/Beirut-based) political bureau, and its military wing. These divisions complicate negotiations, make compliance with agreements uncertain, and risk empowering more radical elements.

The Internal-External Leadership Divide

The geographical and functional split within Hamas's leadership creates significant friction and uncertainty in the negotiation process.

• Communication and Authority: The destruction of communication and command infrastructure in Gaza often severs effective communication between the internal leadership, which bears the direct cost of the war, and the external political bureau, which is less exposed to military pressure and often more involved in negotiations. This fragmentation means the external negotiators may agree to terms that the field commanders in Gaza lack the capacity or the will to enforce, particularly concerning the demobilization of fighters or the surrender of military assets.

• Conflicting Regional Influences: The external leadership, based in countries like Qatar and Turkey, is subject to the influence of regional sponsors and mediators who encourage pragmatic, diplomatic solutions. In contrast, the military wing often maintains a closer ideological and material relationship with the "Axis of Resistance," particularly Iran and Hezbollah, which prioritize a stance of uncompromising armed resistance against Israel. These conflicting regional pressures make a unified, coherent Hamas position on a ceasefire extremely difficult to achieve.

• "Survival" vs. "Victory" Motives: For the internal, on-the-ground leadership, the primary concern may become the survival of the organization's structure and personnel, leading them to prioritize immediate cessation of hostilities. For the external political bureau, the focus might be more on declaring a strategic victory—even if tactical losses were high—and maximizing the long-term political gains, such as a large prisoner release or lifting the blockade, which may necessitate prolonged negotiations and a willingness to resume fighting.

Challenges to Hamas's Control in Gaza

Hamas's authority and control over the Gaza Strip are not absolute, especially following intense military operations, which poses a severe risk to the sustainability of any peace.

• Rival Factions and Clans: Hamas has historically co-existed uneasily with, and sometimes violently suppressed, smaller, more radical Salafi-jihadist factions and powerful clans. If Israel's military operation significantly degrades Hamas's police and security infrastructure, a power vacuum could emerge. This vacuum might be filled by smaller, more extremist groups or armed clans that have no stake in the ceasefire agreement, are not bound by Hamas's political commitments, and are eager to launch attacks to undermine Hamas and provoke a renewed Israeli response.

• Post-Conflict Reconstitution: Any ceasefire provides Hamas with essential "breathing space" to reconstitute its military capabilities, repair its tunnel network, recruit new fighters, and replenish its arsenal. Internal pressure to rearm and "prepare for the next round" is strong, as its legitimacy among some segments of the Palestinian population is intrinsically linked to its ability to resist Israel. If the ceasefire terms do not include robust, verifiable demilitarization mechanisms—a point Hamas has explicitly rejected—the cessation of hostilities merely becomes a military pause before the inevitable resumption of fighting.

• Targeting "Collaborators" and Internal Opponents: As Israeli forces withdraw, Hamas is likely to move quickly to reassert its authority and "settle scores" with groups, clans, or individuals suspected of collaborating with Israel or opposing its rule. This internal violence, intended to re-establish a mafia-like grip on power, is a volatile act that could trigger an Israeli intervention, leading directly to renewed large-scale hostilities.

In summary, the internal divisions on both sides—the political infighting and hardline demands in Israel, and the fragmented, ideologically split, and militarily exposed leadership structure of Hamas—create a systemic fragility that makes any ceasefire exceptionally vulnerable to collapse. These internal pressures ensure that a durable political solution, which both sides view as a non-zero-sum outcome, remains elusive, condemning the region to a cycle of confrontation and uneasy, temporary truces.