Families of hostages tremble as the toll of fallen soldiers grows each day. Inside the White House, disappointment in leadership deepens, and within the national unity government, tensions flare over Gaza strategy. Nearly four months after the October 7 massacre, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorized a broad operation to dismantle Hamas. The ground has been carved through by war, yet there is no clear signal that a political ceasefire is near. Most Israelis support the ongoing offensive, and the national coalition remains intact. None of the political rivals show signs of stepping away from the mission; if they do, the war could drag on indefinitely.
This appears to align with Netanyahu’s stance, which stresses relentless action. The state will not concede until what is termed as total victory over Hamas is achieved. The march is not only about battlefield gains; it is entangled with ongoing political and judicial pressures that could accelerate decisions once the fighting wanes. Protests against the leadership resume, and the prospect of early elections or corruption investigations adds another layer to the calculus. A Crisis Group analyst described the mood succinctly: a strange mix where trust in Netanyahu is low, yet belief in the necessity of war remains strong. A recent Israel Democracy Institute study found that only a small share of Israelis want the prime minister to stay in power once the bombs stop falling.
At the same time, rival factions hesitate to break the coalition, mindful that any misstep could cost them dearly as citizens bear the scars of war. October 7 looms large as a trigger for revenge and a reluctance to return to the pre-war order. Internal disagreements are growing, largely over the priorities of the conflict. The far right calls for eradicating Hamas and reshaping Gaza, a move that would coincide with efforts to expand Jewish settlements and redraw the map of the region. A few days ago, Itamar Ben-Gvir warned that premature end to the war could topple the government, underscoring the fragility of coalition politics in this crisis.
Prioritizing hostages versus defeating Hamas
On the other side of this divide, some advocate prioritizing the release of nearly 130 hostages still held in the Strip. Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s main rival within the cabinet, has gained substantial support in the polls as a result. Lieutenant General Gadi Eisenkot, a former chief of the general staff and a member of the war cabinet, has argued that hostages should not be left in danger, even as the conflict continues. Others, including Joab Brave, push for continuing intense pressure on Gaza as a route to securing freedom. The debate centers on whether a dual aim can be achieved without compromising the safety of hostages or the stability of the government.
Experts have warned that pursuing both goals at once is difficult. Tamir Pardo, a former head of Mossad, described the stance of pursuing both objectives simultaneously as untenable. The cabinet’s competing interests push Netanyahu toward a balancing act that keeps the coalition intact while avoiding a public split. Analysts suggest that if a relief deal is offered that keeps hostages unreleased, right-wing partners might exit the government; conversely, a hard line could prompt Gantz to jump ship. This deadlock benefits Netanyahu by enabling a divide-and-conquer approach that holds the coalition together while he negotiates among factions.
Israel’s losses and public tolerance
Another factor influencing the war’s pace is the human cost in Israel. The casualty count in Gaza continues to rise, with Israeli families gathering at funerals and the nation watching as more soldiers fall. Israel marked some of its darkest days as 24 soldiers died on a single Monday. Yet some experts note that Israeli resilience to protracted conflict has grown since October 7, the bloodiest day since the Holocaust, potentially raising the threshold for public fatigue in future wars.
Researchers from the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security observed that trauma is not evenly distributed. They noted that certain communities shoulder a larger share of losses, which can influence political support and policy choices. The tension between demographic groups and regional loyalties shapes how a society bears the cost of war and its long-term repercussions.
In Washington, leaks suggest the White House has grown weary of extensive destruction in Gaza, and there is reluctance to unilateral moves toward peace negotiations or to endorse a Palestinian state in Ramallah after the conflict. Unlike earlier administrations, President Joe Biden appears cautious about coercive steps that might force Netanyahu to shift course. Still, the U.S. is viewed by many as a highly supportive ally in contrast to the perception of shifting public opinion in Israel.
Overall, the war’s trajectory remains uncertain, with strategic choices shaped by hostage negotiations, battlefield realities, internal political pressures, and external diplomatic signals. The path forward could hinge on whether coalition partners can reconcile divergent goals without dissolving the government, and whether the international community can influence a durable resolution that reduces civilian suffering while safeguarding national security.