Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of a US-backed 15-point plan for Gaza has raised fresh questions over whether his government is prepared to pursue a political settlement to end the genocide, despite months of negotiations aimed at securing a permanent resolution to the conflict.
The roadmap, promoted through US President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace”, envisages the phased disarmament of Hamas alongside an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza. It also provides for Palestinian administration of the territory and international involvement in overseeing security and the transition.
Netanyahu rejected the proposal on Sunday, insisting that Israeli forces would not withdraw before Hamas had been fully disarmed.
“Israel does not accept the 15-point document,” Netanyahu said, while declaring that the Israeli military would carry out no withdrawal until Hamas had surrendered its heavy, light and other weaponry.
Netanyahu also reiterated his opposition to Palestinian statehood, making clear that no Palestinian state would be established while he remained in office.
His rejection places him publicly at odds with Trump’s Gaza initiative at a critical stage in efforts to implement the agreement. Hamas accepted the roadmap in late July, although significant disagreements remain over precisely how disarmament would proceed and, crucially, how it would be sequenced alongside Israeli withdrawal.
At the heart of the dispute is a potentially decisive question: who moves first?
Israel insists Hamas must be fully disarmed before Israeli forces withdraw. The 15-point framework instead envisages a phased process in which weapons are decommissioned and Israeli forces withdraw from designated areas as commitments are verified.
That distinction could determine whether the plan advances or collapses.
If Israel refuses to withdraw until Hamas has completely surrendered its weapons, while Hamas expects Israeli withdrawal and an end to military operations to proceed alongside disarmament, negotiations could reach an impasse before meaningful implementation begins.
What does Netanyahu actually want for Gaza?
Netanyahu’s rejection has also renewed scrutiny of Israel’s longer-term objectives in Gaza.
His government has repeatedly identified the destruction of Hamas’s military capabilities and preventing another October 7-style attack as central objectives.
But his rejection of the latest US-backed framework, combined with his opposition to Palestinian statehood, raises a much larger question: what political future does Netanyahu envisage for Gaza once Israel’s stated military objectives have been achieved?
The question is particularly significant because figures within Netanyahu’s far-right coalition have openly advocated continued Israeli control of Gaza and the re-establishment of Jewish settlements in the territory.
Reports that Israeli military commanders had been involved in discussions over possible withdrawal arrangements shortly before Netanyahu publicly rejected the roadmap have further complicated the picture.
Those discussions reportedly included plans for pilot areas in Gaza linked to an international security presence, leaving some Israeli military officials surprised by Netanyahu’s subsequent public position.
For Palestinians and critics of the Israeli government, his rejection will reinforce longstanding arguments that Israeli policy has prioritised military control and security demands over a negotiated political settlement.
The disagreement therefore goes far beyond the technical details of the latest proposal. It exposes a deeper dispute over what ending the war would actually mean — and, crucially, who would govern Gaza afterwards.
Netanyahu between Trump and his far-right allies
Netanyahu now finds himself between competing political pressures.
Israel is due to hold national elections on 27 October, and Netanyahu remains heavily reliant on a right-wing political base in which influential figures fiercely oppose withdrawal from Gaza and any pathway towards Palestinian statehood.
Moving forward with a US-backed withdrawal risks alienating those forces at a politically sensitive moment.
But openly obstructing Trump’s Gaza plan brings risks of its own.
Netanyahu has repeatedly described Trump in extraordinarily warm terms, previously calling him the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. The relationship with Washington also remains central to Israel’s diplomatic and strategic position.
A serious confrontation with a US president personally invested in advancing the Gaza roadmap would therefore carry significant political consequences for Netanyahu.
That leaves him confronting pressure from two directions: a domestic constituency demanding that Israel retain control of Gaza, and a US administration attempting to advance a framework that ultimately requires Israeli withdrawal.
The Board of Peace has meanwhile insisted that the plan remains operative despite Netanyahu’s comments, saying implementation is intended to proceed through verified stages rather than requiring either side to make irreversible concessions on trust alone.
For now, however, Netanyahu has made his position clear: Israel will not accept a process requiring its military to withdraw before Hamas has been fully disarmed.
With Trump pushing his roadmap, Hamas having accepted the framework and Israel’s election approaching, the dispute is becoming about much more than the sequencing of withdrawal and disarmament.
It is increasingly a test of whether Netanyahu can satisfy the far-right political forces he needs domestically without openly confronting the US president whose support Israel remains heavily dependent upon — and whether his government is ultimately prepared to accept any political settlement that requires Israel to relinquish military control over Gaza.
