Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday formally rejected President Donald Trump’s 15-point plan for Gaza, opening a public breach with Washington over how to disarm Hamas, withdraw Israeli forces and establish a new governing structure in the Palestinian territory.

Speaking at the start of a cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said Israel would not accept the document and that the Israel Defense Forces would make no withdrawal until Hamas had been “genuinely” disarmed. He defined that requirement broadly, saying the group must surrender heavy weapons, light weapons and all other arms. Israeli forces, he added, would continue acting against threats to troops and civilians.

The statement was Netanyahu’s clearest repudiation of the proposal after days of more qualified objections from his government. It also directly challenged Trump’s description of the negotiations. When the roadmap was announced in late July, the president said Israel had helped develop the initiative and was satisfied with it.

Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel was continuing discussions with American officials and that some U.S. ideas were acceptable while others were not. But he left little ambiguity about the published plan itself, presenting its terms as incompatible with Israel’s security requirements.

The central disagreement concerns whether Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian disarmament should proceed together or in strict sequence. Trump’s proposal envisages Hamas and other armed factions gradually relinquishing their weapons and authority as Israeli troops pull back. Security would be transferred to an International Stabilization Force and a newly constituted Palestinian police service.

The plan also calls for governing authority to pass to a new Palestinian administration that would coordinate with the Board of Peace, the U.S.-led international body promoting the roadmap. The arrangement is intended to prevent Hamas from returning to power while creating a mechanism for reconstruction and longer-term civilian rule.

Netanyahu’s position effectively reverses that sequence. Israel wants the disarmament process completed and verified before its military leaves additional territory. The prime minister warned against what he characterized as merely symbolic or fictitious disarmament, reflecting Israeli concerns that Hamas could conceal weapons, preserve clandestine units or rebuild its military infrastructure after a withdrawal.

Hamas responded that it remained committed to the roadmap negotiated through mediators and the Board of Peace. Basem Naim, a member of the group’s political bureau, urged mediators and the United States to press Israel to comply. Hamas has favored a phased process in which the transfer of weapons and Israeli troop movements occur in parallel rather than an unconditional surrender preceding withdrawal.

Those competing interpretations leave negotiators without agreement on the first operational steps. Verification presents another obstacle: the parties have not publicly accepted a common authority with the power and access needed to certify that weapons, tunnels and command structures have been dismantled. Without such a system, even a revised timetable could quickly produce accusations of noncompliance.

Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s senior representative for Gaza, defended the initiative after Netanyahu’s remarks. He described the proposal as the only viable route capable of preventing another conflict. His response suggested the U.S.-led body was not preparing to abandon the framework despite Israel’s opposition.

The rejection is especially significant because Israel remains the United States’ closest security partner in the Middle East and depends heavily on American diplomatic and military support. Washington, in turn, needs Israeli cooperation to implement any arrangement involving troop deployments, border access, humanitarian deliveries or reconstruction inside Gaza.

Trump has portrayed the roadmap as a major step toward durable regional stability. A breakdown would weaken that claim and raise questions about the administration’s ability to translate its leverage over Israel into policy concessions. It could also strain U.S. coordination with Arab governments whose financial support and political participation would be essential to rebuilding Gaza and sustaining a postwar administration.

The disagreement comes as Netanyahu faces an October election and pressure from hard-right political allies who oppose territorial withdrawal and Palestinian statehood. Accepting a plan that appears to exchange an Israeli pullback for incremental Hamas disarmament could expose him to accusations that he is yielding before Israel’s war aims have been achieved.

Netanyahu reinforced that political line Sunday by declaring that no Palestinian state would be created in Gaza or the West Bank while he remains prime minister. That position places him at odds with diplomatic efforts that view Palestinian self-government and an eventual statehood process as elements of a durable regional settlement.

Trump faces his own political calendar, with U.S. midterm elections approaching in November. His administration has sought visible progress in reducing Middle East hostilities, which have affected U.S. military commitments, relations with Gulf partners and global energy markets. A sustained confrontation with Netanyahu could divide parts of Trump’s political coalition, while allowing the plan to fail would undercut one of his central diplomatic initiatives.

The roadmap grew out of a broader 20-point proposal introduced in 2025 following the war triggered by Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel. A ceasefire framework reached in October 2025 reduced the intensity of the conflict, but Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties have continued. The unresolved questions of disarmament, military control and postwar governance have prevented the transition from a limited truce to a comprehensive settlement.

Humanitarian conditions make the diplomatic deadlock more urgent. Gaza’s population continues to depend heavily on external aid, while widespread destruction has left housing, medical services, water systems and other infrastructure in need of extensive reconstruction. Donor governments are unlikely to commit the resources required for a long-term rebuilding program without credible security and governance arrangements.

The next move rests largely with Washington. The administration could revise the document to incorporate Israel’s demand for disarmament before withdrawal, press Netanyahu to accept synchronized implementation, or seek an interim formula under which narrowly defined benchmarks trigger individual Israeli pullbacks. Each approach carries risks: requirements regarded as unattainable could freeze the process, while ambiguous benchmarks could lead to renewed fighting.

For now, Netanyahu has made clear that close relations with Trump do not amount to automatic Israeli consent. His public refusal transforms what had been presented as an implementation challenge into a dispute over the plan’s fundamental architecture. Unless U.S. negotiators can bridge the sequencing and verification gaps, Trump’s Gaza initiative may remain a diplomatic framework without the participation needed to put it into effect.