News on October 9, 2025 confirms that Israel and Hamas have agreed to a first-phase ceasefire and a hostage-prisoner exchange after nearly two years of brutal conflict, a deal publicly advanced by President Trump and mediated by regional actors. This development is being sold as an end to the fighting, with promises of hostages released and partial Israeli withdrawals — but agreements on paper are not the same as lasting victory.
Conservatives should recognize the pragmatic value of forcing enemy combatants to make visible concessions, and credit smart diplomacy when it produces tangible returns like live hostages returning home. Yet anyone who pays attention to history knows that terror organizations have a long record of using pauses to rebuild and retrench, especially when the international community rushes to normalization without enforcement.
Internal evidence from Gaza makes clear that Hamas is not the monolithic power it once pretended to be; a senior Hamas security officer has told reporters the group has lost roughly 80 percent of its control over the Strip, and its command structures have been shattered. That kind of collapse should encourage policymakers to demand concrete disarmament and verifiable steps, not sentimental headlines.
What fills a vacuum matters. Multiple reports show armed clans and rival militias rising in Gaza, and even some anti-Hamas forces gaining ground with outside backing — a chaotic, dangerous environment that could spiral again into violence if not managed properly. The messy replacement of one authority with dozens of warlords is no solution; it’s a recipe for ongoing terror and humanitarian catastrophe if left unchecked.
Hamas itself insists on guarantees that Israel will end the war and has pushed back on immediate disarmament, underscoring that this deal leaves the core threat unresolved unless guarantors enforce terms and verify compliance. Any plan that leaves Hamas’s rockets, tunnels, and terror infrastructure intact is not peace — it is merely a pause that hands the initiative back to the same architects of October 7.
So is Hamas finished? Militarily it has been severely degraded, but ideologically and organizationally it remains a persistent danger until its ability to wage terror is dismantled and its networks cut off. Conservatives should be clear-eyed: celebrate hostage returns and de-escalation where they occur, but insist on verification, strong deterrence, and long-term measures that prevent a remake of the same terror machine under another name.
The United States and Israel must not be lured into premature applause while leaving enforcement to wishful thinking and weak international oversight. The right course is firm diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force and accountability; anything less hands jihadists a victory dressed up as compromise. If leaders want real and lasting peace, they will demand disarmament, enforceable guarantees, and a regional architecture that prevents terror from regrowing in the shadows.
