The ceasefire is inherently unstable. They will only be implemented after there has been a great deal of hostility and mistrust in the hostility. Once a conflict has spread to many parties, the interests of the parties are inevitably different. Some (whom Guy and Heidi Burgess describe as « conflict profiteers ») take advantage of the conflict itself and therefore try to prolong it. [4] Other « extremists » could aspire to an escalation of the conflict and even seek the total destruction of the adversary. It is difficult for each governing body to ensure that these groups comply with ceasefire agreements or have minimal impact, particularly a task that attempts to accept the proposed agreements while hostilities are still ongoing. Third parties can help highlight the benefits of ceasefire agreements and allay fears that support the arguments of opponents of the ceasefire. However, the introduction of ceasefire agreements also carries risks: they can be manipulated by one or all parties to the conflict; to freeze and legitimize inequalities of power and resources between opponents and within their constituencies; And by giving the belligerents time to rebuild their forces, they could create the conditions for a more destructive conflict in the future. The persistence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a testament to the weakness of these agreements. While the Israeli government retains legitimate exclusive control over its use of force, radical sections of Israeli society have had an important capacity to exacerbate the conflict, even though the majority of the population and the government`s official policy have sought a ceasefire and negotiations with the Palestinians. For example, a member of an extremist anti-Araabist movement murdered Yitzhak Rabin, a moderate Israeli leader, who was seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict in the mid-1990s, precisely because Rabin was willing to negotiate and perhaps make concessions to the Palestinians. Since then, the Israeli government has been led by hard and arguably antagonistic elements, less willing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority. Similarly, there are several factions vying for power within Palestinian society, each with its own goals and interests.

The Palestinian Authority considered it extremely difficult to control and involve more radical groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The result, especially when the negotiations do not reflect the interests of extremist groups, appears to be suicide bombings against Israeli citizens to disrupt the resumption of a ceasefire and peace process. Indeed, the most fanatical factions on both sides rely on conflicts to justify their continuation as a social unit and therefore prefer to prolong violence rather than abandon their objectives (often with total destruction on the other side).