At the Sept. 29 White House news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump announced a 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza. The president hailed it as not just a ceasefire plan, but a historic day that will lead to “eternal peace in the Middle East.”

The question now: Can this proposal go even part of that ambitious distance? There is reason for hope, with the plan offering bitter pills and sugar cubes for all sides.

Hamas would have to agree to disarm and relinquish any governing role in Gaza. There is also an offer of amnesty for those who renounce violence, and a promise of safe passage to other countries for those who want to leave.

It's important that the plan received buy-in from an unprecedented grouping of key Arab and Muslim powers.

There is also reason for cynicism. The framework for getting to the ceasefire is not entirely new, and the past two years have been plagued by several false starts and promises on similar terms.

Gaza peace deal has many potential sticking points, but ...

On the table is a proposal for a complete Israeli hostage release within three days of Israel publicly accepting the agreement, followed by a release of Palestinian prisoners. Humanitarian aid would start to flood back into Gaza, and Israel would withdraw in stages to a security perimeter.

Beyond ending the war, the plan charts a path forward, albeit in hedged language, that marks a reversal of Trump’s recent refusal to discuss a political endgame for Israelis and Palestinians.

Running counter to Netanyahu’s stark refusal to accept a Palestinian state, but in concert with a clear demand from Arab allies, the proposal calls for an opening for “a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”

The plan is even more definitive against the displacement of Gazans – a complete pivot from Trump’s February “Gaza Riviera" proposal and another sign that the United States paid attention to the priorities of other countries in the region.

The president stated Netanyahu had accepted the plan; however, the prime minister’s response essentially was: “Yes, but ...”

Netanyahu said the proposal was fully consistent with the five principles his security Cabinet adopted in August, to include Israel retaining security responsibility, including a guarded perimeter, “for the foreseeable future,” and a future Gaza civilian administration run by neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Netanyahu's conditions seem to be at odds with a plan that otherwise nods to a two-state solution and assumption of PA control.

In consultation with the Israeli delegation, these conditions allowed Israel to get to a qualified "yes," while likely making it harder to get Hamas to do the same.

These Israeli goals are in tension with the plan’s call for eventual full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a reformed PA assuming control. Following the news conference, Hamas representatives said they had not yet seen the details of Trump’s plan, but the outline seemed both vague and similar to an Israeli vision.

Hamas leaders currently studying the entire plan may return with a “yes, but,” wary of handing over their last leverage with the hostages only to see Israel resume its push to “total victory.”

Ambiguity and “yes, buts” can be constructive when both parties want a deal and need face-saving space to agree. They can be poison pills when one or both parties believe they have better alternatives, or nothing to lose.

International cooperation is key to ending conflict

Trump assured Netanyahu he would provide him “full backing to finish the job” if Hamas rejected the deal. Netanyahu affirmed that’s the route he would take.

Meanwhile, Hamas has consistently held that disarming is not an option “as long as there is occupation.” With a history of mutual distrust and bad-faith negotiating behavior, 20 principles could be a road map to progress or a land mine-strewn path to nowhere.

It is also not impossible to imagine that Netanyahu secretly welcomes some long-awaited American pressure for a ceasefire. Pinning the blame on American demands has long been an escape chute for the Israeli prime minister in the face of domestic coalition partners, such as Bezalel Smotrich, who oppose much of the plan.

In parallel, Qatar, on which Trump heaped praise during the news conference, has suggested it can persuade Hamas to disarm and accept the plan, according to news reports. This division of labor can pay meaningful dividends.

The stakes for Palestinians and Israelis could not be higher. Against the horrific backdrop of death and destruction in Gaza since the massacre in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, while Gazans struggle for life above ground and Israeli hostages cling to life below, the realization of the plan’s goals to end the war, release the hostages, increase humanitarian assistance and make Gaza livable again for Palestinians is an urgent imperative.

U.S. persistence, with international backing, can make the difference. An American president who loves nothing more than announcing deals has now put one on the table.

History suggests he could walk away if both parties don't play ball. However, with his self-anointment as head of the post-war implementation "Board of Peace" oversight committee, Trump now has more skin in the game and more incentive to insist on a ceasefire agreement, even if “eternal peace” remains remote.

Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: There are many reasons the Gaza peace plan could fail. It might work anyway. | Opinion

Reporting by Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect