Netanyahu’s dual nightmare in Gaza

The Gaza crisis, beyond the military operations, has now reached its most complex stage: the “post-war governance issue.” This deadlock demonstrates that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to achieve his stated objectives both on the battlefield and in broader strategic terms. In clearer terms, the occupying regime of Jerusalem faces a dual failure regarding the post-war (post-ceasefire) situation in Gaza.

One of Israel’s main objectives since the start of the Gaza war, and throughout its two-year continuation, was not only to destroy Hamas’ military capabilities but also to completely eliminate the organization from Gaza’s governing structure.

However, Hamas has firmly declared that governing Gaza is an “internal” matter and will not surrender control to external actors’ proposed solutions. This stance has challenged Tel Aviv’s calculations and shows that any sustainable solution for Gaza requires acceptance by the key actors on the ground—namely, Hamas. As a result, the absence of an acceptable and legitimate alternative within Gaza has effectively stalled Netanyahu’s “day-after” plans.

The more critical point is that despite the intensity of military operations, Hamas has not only survived as a military structure but continues to exist as a political and ideological force in the West Asian geography. This dual resilience has become a major nightmare for Netanyahu and the hardliners in his cabinet, including Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

Although military operations have weakened Hamas’ infrastructure and field command, the resistance structure remains intact in two key dimensions:

Military Dimension: Hamas’ ability to reorganize, respond, and maintain the morale of its forces demonstrates that its absolute destruction is far beyond the current capabilities of Israeli military operations.

Political Dimension: Hamas’ ideology remains deeply rooted among a significant portion of Palestinians. The absence of a comprehensive and just political solution ensures that this political entity will persist and will not be a removable pawn in any future reconstruction negotiations.

Many close advisors have warned the Israeli Prime Minister that if he cannot fulfill the promise of “total destruction of Hamas” while simultaneously establishing a stable and alternative governing framework, this war will not mark the end of a phase but merely the prelude to a prolonged conflict and fruitless negotiations—a scenario that would overshadow all of Tel Aviv’s strategic objectives in the region.