Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and eight Arab nations have now agreed to President Donald Trump’s 20-point framework, but that framework has not eliminated the differences between them. Trump deserves credit for obtaining the agreement through intensive diplomacy conducted during the U.N. General Assembly last week, as well as a Monday meeting with Netanyahu. But questions remain over whether the deal will work or, perhaps more precisely, which parts of the deal will work.

The deal would place Gaza temporarily under the governance of “a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee,” responsible for providing municipal services, which would be overseen by a newly created, international “Board of Peace,” chaired by President Trump. This arrangement would last “until such time as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has completed its reform program,” which would require that decrepit institution to transform into an effective governing body, capable of living peaceably alongside Israel.

The deal envisions Gaza as “a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors,” to be “redeveloped” for the benefit of its own inhabitants. It requires Hamas to release all the hostages and relinquish any role in the future government of Gaza. Nor will Israel “occupy or annex Gaza.” Instead, “The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza” that will “train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces” and “work with Israel and Egypt” to secure Gaza’s borders.

From Israel’s perspective, the deal is acceptable because it does not force them to leave Gaza until Hamas is destroyed. Even if Hamas rejects the plan, the redevelopment aspect will proceed behind the Israeli front line, until Hamas is driven out of their strongholds. From the perspective of Arabic nations, the deal is acceptable because it does not surrender the dream of an eventual Palestinian state inside the border originally allotted for Israel. The agreement stipulates that, “when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”

The “terms that have been proposed” are “acceptable to Israel … but really, I would say, uncomfortable for them to agree to. [There are] also terms that seem to be uncomfortable for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to agree to,” said Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.) on “Washington Watch.” “In a situation where you’ve got such motivated, politically charged, historically charged arguments on either side, I don’t think either side [is] going to be happy with any type of negotiated resolution. This seems like that would be one of those circumstances that might end up getting across the finish line.”

Of course, the plan’s success is contingent upon Hamas’s removal from Gaza, preferably sooner rather than later. Any parts of Gaza where Hamas remains cannot become a “deradicalized terror-free zone.” Nor is it feasible to expect the deal’s prisoner exchanges, humanitarian aid programs, and municipal administration to run smoothly with an ongoing hot war.

“Hamas is determined to keep their foot on the throat of the Israeli people. That’s not acceptable long-term,” Harrigan insisted. “My concern over this deal is that it’s long on hope [but] very short on assurances from a political, military perspective. … Given how this conflict was started, I’ve got serious concerns about whether peace can actually be achieved through this deal.”

However short the deal’s assurances, Netanyahu felt that he could accept the plan as “consistent with the five principles my government set for the end of the war,” he said during a joint press conference with President Trump on Monday. “Here’s our plan: … All our hostages, both those who are alive and those who died, all of them, will return home immediately. Hamas will be disarmed. Gaza will be demilitarized. Israel will retain security responsibility, including a security perimeter for the foreseeable future. And lastly, Gaza will have a peaceful civilian administration that is run neither by Hamas nor by the Palestinian Authority.”

According to Trump, the responsibility for convincing Hamas to accept the deal rests with America’s Arab partners. On Monday, the foreign ministries of eight Muslim-majority countries issued a joint declaration endorsing President Trump’s 20-point plan. These countries were Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the U.A.E., Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt.

The Arab statement came after Netanyahu reportedly apologized for Israel’s strike against Hamas in Qatar, which resulted in the death of a Qatari security officer, and promised not to attack Qatar’s sovereignty again, in a call made during his private meeting with Trump.

The Muslim countries “welcome[d] the announcement by President Trump regarding his proposal to end the war, rebuild Gaza, prevent the displacement of the Palestinian people and advance a comprehensive peace, as well as his announcement that he will not allow the annexation of the West Bank.” They “affirm[ed] their readiness to engage positively and constructively with the United States and the parties toward finalizing the agreement and ensuring its implementation.”

“We’re relying on the countries that I named and others to deal with Hamas,” Trump said at Monday’s press conference. “The Arab countries … and Muslim countries are going to be dealing with Hamas.”

“If they’re unable to do so,” Trump added an edge to his vote of confidence, “Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas.”

Israel is fully committed to removing the threat of Hamas, in whatever form that removal will take. “We’re giving everybody a chance to have this done peacefully, something that will achieve all our war objectives without any further bloodshed,” said Netanyahu. “But if Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President — or if they supposedly accept it and then basically do everything to counter it — then Israel will finish the job by itself.”

“This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done,” Netanyahu reiterated.

Netanyahu already had to swallow some hard pills in agreeing to the deal, given that it pointed toward an ultimate two-state solution. Since October 7, the Israeli public is broadly opposed to this outcome. However, achieving his war aims with regard to Hamas in Gaza will enable Netanyahu to point to some tangible benefits in exchange.

For their part, the Arab nation partners are keener on the two-state solution than Israeli security (they have their own domestic politics, after all). Their statement concluded by highlighting the benefits for their side, noting that the deal “ensures unrestricted delivery of sufficient humanitarian aid to Gaza, no displacement of the Palestinians, the release of hostages, a security mechanism that guarantees the security of all sides, full Israeli withdrawal, rebuilds Gaza and creates a path for a just peace on the basis of the two state solution, under which Gaza is fully integrated with the West Bank in a Palestinian state in accordance with international law.”

Netanyahu may be banking on the (highly plausible) contingency that Arab hopes for a legitimate Palestinian entity capable of governing such a second state never comes to fruition.

“As for the Palestinian Authority, I appreciate your firm position that the PA can have no role whatsoever in Gaza without undergoing a radical and genuine transformation,” he said to Trump at their joint press conference. “In your 2020 peace plan, which you mentioned just now, you made clear what that transformation requires. It’s not lip service. It’s not checking a box. It’s a fundamental, genuine, and enduring transformation. That means ending ‘pay to slay.’ Changing the poisonous textbooks that teach hatred of Jews to Palestinian children. Stopping incitement in the media. Ending lawfare against Israel at the ICC, the ICJ. Recognizing the Jewish state, and many, many other reforms.”

“It won’t come as a surprise to you that the vast majority of Israelis have no faith that the PA leopard will change its spots,” Netanyahu continued, citing Jeremiah 13:23. “But rather than wait for this miraculous transformation, your plan provides a practical and realistic path forward for Gaza in the coming years, in which Gaza will be administered neither by Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority, but by those committed to a genuine peace with Israel.”

In other words, Arab nations agreed to Trump’s deal because it provided for the Palestinian Authority to rule Palestinian territories at some future date. Israel agreed to Trump’s deal because it did not allow the Palestinian Authority to rule the Palestinian territories now.

This is a delicate balance, one which could see the deal unravel in months or years — if it even gets off the ground. “But if the United States is saying, as a third party, an independent broker, ‘We’re willing to back this,’ President Trump has the full faith and authority of the United States government to enter into that,” said Harrigan. “If the other side comes in, and President Trump uses his force of personality to do it, it’s possible.”

Yet much still depends on the Palestinian (and Hamas) response. “Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that they would accept it,” said Harrigan. “Now, it’s up to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to see if they will do the same.”