Rubio Breaks Down Which Part Of Hamas Deal Will Be ‘A Tough Piece’
Senator Marco Rubio laid out a clear, unapologetic view of what will determine the success of the proposed ceasefire and peace arrangement: the demobilization of Hamas. He told ABC’s “This Week” that the core challenge is not paper promises but ensuring Hamas or any successor cannot again threaten Israel’s security. This is a Republican take that centers safety first, then diplomacy.
The tentative deal announced by Hamas drew attention because it reportedly agrees to release remaining hostages and to step back from power under terms pushed by President Trump. That development is meaningful, but Rubio and other conservatives warn that a signed document is not the same as eliminated capability. The plan’s credibility depends on actions on the ground.
Trump pushed the moment, setting a deadline and urging Hamas to act quickly, and he framed the offer in stark terms about who would live or die under the truce. Republicans see that pressure as necessary leverage, not provocation. A decisive timeline forces choices and exposes whether Hamas is serious about a lasting change.
What Rubio said
Rubio said plainly that the second phase of any deal must address the remaining military threat: “Yeah, look, that’s going to be a key component of that second phase we just discussed as long as there’s a threat emanating from Gaza against Israel’s security, be it Hamas or some successor organization. As long as there are people, organizations inside of Gaza who possess rockets, build tunnels, want to kidnap, murder, and rape Israeli citizens and attack Israel, there isn’t going to be peace,” Rubio said.
He reminded viewers that the regional players backing the deal understand the same reality and have signed on to a framework that envisions a Gaza administered by Palestinian officials who do not pose a renewed threat. “Everyone knows this, including the Arab countries in the region,” Rubio continued, “which is why they all signed on to this deal put forward by President Trump that deals with the fact that what Israel wants, what we want, what the deal envisions, what the countries in the region envision is a Gaza that’s run by Palestinian technocrats and Palestinian civil servants and Palestinian leaders that do not pose a threat to Israel. If there is a threat emanating from Gaza, you’re not going to have peace here that’s sustainable.”
Rubio stressed the simple logic conservatives have repeated for months: you cannot accept a ceasefire that leaves Hamas armed and intact. “So that has to happen. That demobilization has to happen. And clearly, Hamas is an organization that we do not believe can be a part of that because of their history. Their very purpose for existence is to threaten the Israeli state,” Rubio added. “So that’ll have to be addressed in the second phase, and it’s going to be a tough piece of it, no doubt about it. But if we truly want enduring peace, anyone who’s in favor of enduring peace should be in favor of demobilization of Hamas or any other armed terrorist organization that seeks to operate from Gaza.”
This is not hair-splitting. Republicans argue that demobilization is the only thing that separates a temporary lull from a durable peace. Without disarmament, tunnels, and command structures neutralized, the deal risks being a pause that enables another offensive later on. The public on both sides of this issue senses that reality.
On the ground, reports suggest Palestinians in Gaza are weary of Hamas rule and increasingly open to alternatives that bring relief and stability. That pressure cuts in favor of any deal that offers humanitarian aid and a path away from violence. Conservatives see this as a political opportunity to make sure leadership changes are meaningful and enforceable.
Washington plans to keep pushing; U.S. envoys are expected to travel to the region to iron out details and test Hamas’ willingness to demobilize. Republicans want those conversations to include hard verification measures and clear consequences for bad actors. Diplomacy is welcome when it comes backed by the means to enforce it.
Republicans also underscore regional buy-in as indispensable because neighbors understand the threat firsthand and have leverage. Arab states signing onto a plan that envisions nonviolent Palestinian governance is a major shift that should not be dismissed. The point is simple: peace requires partners who will hold each other accountable.
Critics will argue demobilization is impractical, too difficult to police, or impossible without a massive occupation. Rubio’s answer is practical: you design the second phase to include monitoring, troop withdrawals tied to benchmarks, and regional enforcement. That structure turns vague hopes into measurable checkpoints.
The moral thread in Republican arguments is straightforward: Israel has a right to exist in safety, and any deal that guts that right is not a deal conservatives can accept. Rubio frames demobilization as both a security necessity and a moral imperative for lasting peace. The goal is to stop assaults on civilians, not merely pause them.
As talks proceed, the political fight will stay focused on whether the agreement removes Hamas’ ability to strike again. Conservatives will press for verification and consequences, not symbolic gestures. If the second phase fails to neutralize armed groups, Republicans will oppose wider implementation.
What happens next will depend on whether Hamas accepts real demobilization and whether regional players help enforce it. The Trump-backed push has created a potentially decisive moment, and Rubio argues Republicans should keep the pressure on. For those who want sustainable peace, demobilization is a test you cannot ignore.
