This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.As the world waits for what remains of the Hamas leadership to respond to Donald Trump’s 20-point peace deal – which the US president says they had better accept or “pay in hell” – it’s important to remember that there’s no certainty that the deal, as published this week, will make it past Netanyahu’s cabinet either.Trump announced on September 29 that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had agreed to the terms of the deal, which includes what on the face of it appears to be a highly conditional reference to Palestinian self-determination. “While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place [my italics] for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”As they thrash out each clause of this, Hamas negotiators will be mindful of the fact that, on his return to Israel, Netanyahu said he had not agreed to a Palestinian state. He posted on social media saying that a promise of statehood was not written anywhere in the agreement and that Israel would “forcibly resist” such an outcome.They will also note that according to the terms of the deal, their organisation is supposed to disband and disarm and they will be excluded, as representative of Hamas at least, from taking any further part in the governance of Gaza or indeed a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, in the West Bank, Hamas’s counterpart Fatah, which runs the Palestinian Authority (PA), has lost the support of most Palestinians (a recent poll found just 6% would vote for Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president). Abbas is 89 years old and has surrounded himself with elderly supporters. The PA has been dogged by corruption scandals for years. It’s clear that to have any chance of forming a coherent and credible government for a future Palestinian state, a new generation of leaders will be needed. The man who many think should lead that government is currently serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail.Marwan Barghouti has been called “Palestine’s Mandela”. This is clearly partly for his lengthy spell of incarceration. But it’s also a reference to his preference for peaceful resistance – although, to be clear, he has not renounced violence as a means to political ends, either. Barghouti is respected by both Palestinian secularists and Islamist leaders, many of whom he has become friendly with in prison. Last year, the former head of the Israeli intelligence agency Shin Bet, Ami Ayalon, said releasing Barghouti would be a meaningful step towards constructive negotiations.But as Leonie Fleischmann notes, powerful people want to keep him locked up. Fleischmann, an expert in Middle East conflict from City St Georges, University of London, says that the PA leadership has repeatedly opposed his release in prisoner swaps. And Netanyahu said, in response to an op-ed by Barghouti that was printed by the New York Times, that: “Calling imprisoned Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian is like calling Syrian president, Bashar Assad, a paediatrician.” Read more: As Hamas considers a peace deal, the man most Palestinians want to lead them sits in an Israeli jail It was interesting that, while the peace deal was largely pulled together in the fringes of the recent United Nations general assembly meeting in New York, representatives of the Palestinian authority were not there as the US had cancelled their US visas. It’s not the first time that the US has undermined the ability of the PA to represent its people. And the irony, as Anne Irfan points out, is that the PA was actually set up as part of the Oslo Accords, the settlement famously signed at the White House by PLO chief Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, with Bill Clinton presiding. US president Bill Clinton with Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony on 13 September 1993. Vince Musi/The White House As Irfan, a historian of the Middle East from UCL, observes that not only did the accords favour Israel, giving Palestinians limited scope for self-governance, the summit that followed at Camp David was stage-managed to ensure a failure to reach an agreement. Successive US administrations, says Irfan, have undermined the ability of the PA to exercise leadership. Read more: How America helped create the Palestinian Authority – only to undermine it ever since Still, the deal as presented – flawed as it is – does offer Palestinians some significant concessions. The violence will stop and the flow of aid into Gaza will resume – significantly, overseen by the UN and the Red Crescent rather than the widely discredited Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF has been running the system of aid distribution, which has seen so many Palestinians killed as they wait to get food for their families.Israel has pledged not to annex Gaza or the West Bank. Nobody will be forced to leave. And the deal offers amnesty to Hamas members who give up their weapons and renounce violence. Julie Norman believes Hamas would be well advised to accept the deal. First, if they don’t, Trump has given the green light to Israel to “finish the job” in Gaza. Norman, an expert in the Middle East and National Security at UCL and the Royal United Services Institute, also believes this is the best offer Hamas is going to get. As she observes: “Gazans are desperate for the devastation to end.” They may not react well to Hamas prolonging the violence for its own ends. Read more: Trump's 20-point plan for Gaza is deeply flawed but it may be the best offer Hamas can expect A regional perspectiveA big factor in all this is what appears to be an enthusiastic buy-in from Israel’s Arab neighbours. As Scott Lucas says, they also want the killing to stop. There is a considerable economic upside in ending the conflict and pushing for further normalisation with Israel. There will also be money to be made in the reconstruction of post-war Gaza. But at the same time, they will be aware of the need not to antagonise their own people, who are largely sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Bringing an end to the violence in Gaza will ease those tensions while at the same time offering the chance to restore a measure of calm to a region that has been riddled with violence over the past two years.Lucas, an expert in Middle East politics at University College Dublin, thinks that it will take time and the rebuilding of trust for normalisation to resume. But there is no chance of that at all while the killing continues in Gaza. Read more: Where does the Arab and Muslim world stand on Trump's Gaza peace plan? Expert Q&A Good news from MoldovaThere were serious concerns ahead of last weekend’s election in Moldova that Russian interference might affect the result of the poll, which pitted pro-EU president, Maia Sandu, against the pro-Russian Patriotic Electoral Bloc led by Igor Dodon.In the end, despite reports of widespread attempts to sway voters towards Russia (including recruiting Russian Orthodox clergy to try to persuade their flock to cast their votes for Dodon) it wasn’t even close. Sandu’s Party of Action (PAS) and Solidarity won with more than 50% of the votes cast, compared to the Patriotic Electoral Bloc’s 28.14%. Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, pointed to the low turnout and the fact that the vast majority of votes cast by Moldova’s sizeable diaspora in Europe were for PAS is an indication of how deeply divided the country remains over its future direction. Read more: Moldova: pro-EU party wins majority in election dominated by Russian interference Maga’s Viking obsessionThere’s been a degree of hilarity over words uttered by the FBI boss, Kash Patel, at a press conference to announce that a suspect in the shooting of the rightwing influencer Charlie Kirk had been apprehended. Assuring Kirk that his work would continue, Patel signed off with the words: “I’ll see you in Valhalla.” Some of those commenting thought it weird to eulogise a Christian nationalist with a reference to a pagan afterlife. Others pointed out that Viking mythology has long been an obsession with far-right movements and was an important part of Nazi iconography.Tom Birkett, a professor of Old English and Old Norse at University College Cork, explains where the idea of Valhalla fits within Nordic myth systems and recounts the way it has subsequently been colonised by the far-right. He believes it’s far more likely that Patel was using the reference to elevate Kirk to hero warrior status than sending any kind of coded message to America’s far-right extremists. Read more: ‘See you in Valhalla’: how the FBI director waded into the far-right's obsession with the Vikings Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.