US-Israel Differences Surface Over Gaza Peace Plan as Netanyahu Rejects 15-Point Roadmap

Dragon Media News Desk

Strategic differences between the United States and Israel have come into sharper view after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly rejected a 15-point peace roadmap backed by Washington and intended to bring an end to the Gaza conflict. The disagreement has added further uncertainty to Middle East diplomacy at a time when tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran remain high.

Speaking at a weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said not all proposals put forward by the United States were acceptable to Israel. While expressing respect for US President Donald Trump, he also indicated that Israel would not hesitate to oppose American proposals when it considered that necessary.

The US side, however, has not immediately portrayed Netanyahu’s remarks as a major confrontation. Reports citing American officials suggest that Washington is also taking into account the domestic political context of Israel’s approaching election. At the same time, US officials are reportedly continuing private efforts to persuade the Netanyahu government to give the peace process a chance.

At the centre of the dispute is a 15-point roadmap covering issues including a long-term ceasefire in Gaza, the disarmament of Hamas, a phased Israeli military withdrawal, reconstruction and post-war governance.

Netanyahu has maintained that Israeli forces will not withdraw from Gaza until Hamas is fully disarmed.

Hamas, meanwhile, has said it remains committed to the latest roadmap. Its representatives have emphasized that Israeli attacks must cease completely, Israeli forces must withdraw, and reconstruction must move forward. The positions of the two sides therefore remain far apart on fundamental security and political questions.

This is also the central challenge confronting the United States.

Washington remains Israel’s longstanding security partner, but it also faces pressure from the Arab world and the wider international community to reduce the intensity of the conflict and create a credible path toward political settlement. With tensions involving Iran and other regional fronts continuing simultaneously, prolonged instability in Gaza could become an additional strategic burden for the United States.

Domestic electoral politics in Israel are also influencing Netanyahu’s position. Influential figures within the right-wing coalition have argued that military pressure should not be reduced until Hamas is fully defeated. This creates a political constraint for Netanyahu, who could risk losing domestic support if he accepts elements of the US-backed peace proposal that are opposed by his coalition partners.

Questions surrounding the roadmap, however, extend beyond whether Israel accepts or rejects it.

The proposal has also drawn criticism for being shaped largely through external diplomatic efforts without sufficiently broad Palestinian political participation. Key issues remain unresolved, including Gaza’s future governance, the political and military status of Hamas, Israeli troop withdrawal, security guarantees and reconstruction.

Without clear agreement on these matters, implementation of the roadmap is likely to remain difficult.

The latest developments once again highlight a longstanding reality of conflict resolution: peace plans designed from outside are unlikely to produce lasting results without genuine political consent from the parties directly involved.

The challenge therefore comes not only from differences between Washington and Tel Aviv, but also from the deep mistrust between Israel and Hamas.

China has consistently called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, an end to the humanitarian crisis and implementation of the two-state solution. Beijing has also supported the principle of “the Palestinians governing Palestine” and has argued that a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Palestinian question should be pursued within a United Nations-based framework and through broader international consensus.

The latest deadlock in Gaza underlines that peace in the Middle East cannot be secured through temporary ceasefires or externally drafted diplomatic documents alone.

A sustainable settlement will require genuine participation by both Palestinians and Israelis, support from regional actors, and a political framework grounded in international law. Without these elements, the current initiative risks becoming another incomplete roadmap rather than a durable path toward peace.