After the death of Yahya Sinwar, the choir of blessed peacemakers resumed the refrain for an immediate ceasefire and a plan for “the day after.” Kamala Harris, the lead singer, glanced repeatedly at her politically crafted score that proclaimed, “it is time for the day after to begin without Hamas in power.”

What criteria determine when the day after a war begins? Harris claims it has come because “Hamas is decimated and its leadership is eliminated.” But Hamas has not yet surrendered, and even a significant reduction of military capability may not be sufficient. Sinwar’s younger brother Mohammed, who shares his brother’s hardline stance and brutality, will succeed him. This may only complicate the peace process.

In the shifting sands of the Middle East, there are other uncertainties. For instance, Hezbollah has threatened to increase, not cease, their unprovoked attacks on Israel. The Houthis attack vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eden, threatening global trade. The Israeli retaliation against Iran could lead to an expansion of the conflict, involving the U.S. and possibly Russia and China. No Arab state has formally agreed to take the lead in stabilizing Gaza, insisting only on a ceasefire and humanitarian aid.

These unfolding events leave unanswered the question of the day after what, and when this will occur. Despite gains against Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel is still fighting a war on eight fronts. What conditions are needed to realistically define the day after?

With history as a guide, consider that the development and initiation of the Marshall Plan, the most successful postwar reconstruction, was not begun in 1941, 1942 or 1943. Development of the proposal began only in 1944 and was presented in September, eight months prior to the end of the war on May 8, 1945.

However, this plan was NOT the Marshall Plan! It was the ill-advised Morgenthau Plan that aimed to de-industrialize Germany and transform it to an agrarian society so it couldn’t wage war again. This would have devastated German society, causing massive unemployment, poverty, starvation, and long-term instability. If this initial plan had not been rejected, it would have been “Versailles II.” Proposed only towards the end of war when victory was in sight, it still proved premature and likely catastrophic.

The transformative Marshall Plan, or European Recovery Program, did not emerge overnight but evolved slowly after considerable confusion and debate about competing ideas of how to manage postwar Europe. Most are surprised to learn that George Marshall announced this proposal in a speech at Harvard in June 1947, a full two years after Germany’s surrender in 1945.

It was implemented in 1948, three years after unconditional surrender. Germany was devasted by war, its economy in ruins. Marshall recognized that a strong Germany was essential for European recovery. The punitive Morgenthau Plan that proposed crippling Germany’s industrial base was driven by fear and anger because of its barbaric atrocities during the war. Time was needed for the passions of war to fade and a magnanimous sentiment to prevail.

The lesson is clear: We are far from knowing what the day after will look like or when it will occur. As Netanyahu stated, eliminating Sinwar is not the end of the Gaza war, but the beginning of the end. The battle with Hezbollah is in a middle phase and the war against Iran, the head of the octopus, is only beginning. It is illusory to think that a constructive, day after plan can be developed before the smoke of battle has lifted, the emotional climate cooled, and the facts on the ground of the postwar Middle East are defined.

Israel will likely defeat Hamas and Hezbollah, but what will Lebanon look like? What will the attitude toward Hamas of the Arab street be in Gaza? Will Iran remain an Islamic nuclear power or a restored Westernized nation? What role will the U.S. play after the election, as well as Russia or China? Will moderate Arab states agree to collaborate with Israel and the West to establish a transformative “Middle East Recovery Program?” Currently, none have signed on.

Even with a clear-cut unconditional surrender marking the end of the Second World War, it took extensive political debate, three years of military occupation, and a process of de-Nazification to successfully implement a stable restructuring of Europe. The “day after” in the Middle East war that will result in lasting peace, as with successful wars throughout history, requires both the victor and the defeated players. With the tide turning toward Israel, this will be when their enemies are forced into accepting defeat, not a perpetuation of ceaseless ceasefires.

Historically, the criteria for victory are well established:

1. Military dominance which is achieved by decisive defeat of the enemy’s forces that render them unable to continue battle.
2. Gaining control of key economic or strategic territories that signify defeat to the enemy.
3. Political collapse signified by the breakdown of the enemy’s political infrastructure, regime change, or the loss of the will to fight.
4. Economic depletion such that the enemy’s financial resources are drained to the point that they can no longer continue the war effort.
5. Diplomatic negotiations that result in an agreement which formally ends the conflict in favor of a victor.

A diplomatic solution (5) is not possible with religiously fanatic terrorists too willing to die. This war, characterized by modern technology, guerrilla tactics, and asymmetrical warfare, admittedly adds new complexities. But the basic principles of victory and defeat remain relevant. Israel has made notable progress achieving points 1 through 4. Once these are more fully realized and facts on the ground are in clearer focus, the prolonged conversation about the day after can begin.

Robert Schwartz, who holds a Ph.D., is a psychologist and former assistant professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. He has published pioneering scientific articles on positive psychology and coping with stress, as well as social and political commentaries in the Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, Christian Science Monitor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the American Thinker, and others.