Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly rejected a 15-point Gaza proposal pushed by former President Trump, insisting Israeli forces will remain in Gaza until Hamas is fully disarmed and ruling out Palestinian statehood while elections loom at home.

Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet the U.S.-backed 15-point framework is unacceptable in its present form and that Israeli forces will continue to act against any threats to troops and civilians on the ground. He made the stance clear in a way that leaves little wiggle room, positioning security above diplomatic convenience. The move creates a public rift between Israel and a U.S. administration that once championed the plan.

At the meeting Netanyahu rejected the Board of Peace proposal outright and emphasized that withdrawal is not on the table without real disarmament. That language reflects a hardline security-first approach that resonates with voters who expect decisive action after years of conflict. The prime minister paired his rhetoric with concrete refusal rather than a call for negotiation.

“Israel rejects the 15-point Gaza document proposed by the Board of Peace. The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is genuinely disarmed.”

Netanyahu spelled out what he means by genuine disarmament and rejected any cosmetic or paper-only solutions. “It needs to be genuine disarmament, not fictitious disarmament,” Netanyahu said, repeating the central demand that drives Israeli operational policy. That is a direct rebuke to arrangements that leave militant capacity intact while claiming compliance.

This distinction matters because past ceasefires have allowed militant groups to keep operational capability while technically honoring agreements. Netanyahu signaled that Israel will not accept a repeat of that pattern, insisting disarmament be verifiable and complete. For many on the right, that stance is the baseline of any peace framework.

The split comes at a politically tense moment. Hamas endorsed the 15-point framework in late July, and the plan had been presented as a breakthrough, but now a key U.S. ally has publicly turned it down. With Israeli elections scheduled for October 27, Netanyahu faces domestic pressure from a right-wing base that opposes concessions on security and territorial issues.

Netanyahu also shut the door on Palestinian statehood while he leads, making that a non-starter for any settlement package tied to the plan.

“As long as I am prime minister, no Palestinian state will be established, not in Gaza and not in the West Bank.”

That stance removes a major political lever from U.S. negotiators and signals a firm ideological boundary.

The prime minister framed the decision in pragmatic political terms, acknowledging competing ideas and the need to defend core positions. He said, “They have ideas; some of them are acceptable to us and some are not, and we know how to stand our ground on these matters.” That phrasing underscores how domestic electoral dynamics shape foreign policy decisions in real time.

The White House has not issued an immediate public response and appears to be working to determine next steps, while the complete text of the 15 points has not been publicly released. Those gaps leave open which specific provisions beyond disarmament and withdrawal Netanyahu finds irreconcilable. Without the document in full, observers can only speculate about the contours of disagreement.

On the ground, Israel currently maintains forces in more than half of the Gaza Strip, and some ministers want to expand that presence rather than shrink it. A withdrawal under terms already accepted by Hamas would be politically risky for a prime minister whose grip on power is uncertain. The choices ahead will force Israeli leaders to balance military realities with electoral survival.

Several key facts remain unresolved: the full 15-point text, the mandate and makeup of the Board of Peace that drafted it, whether the cabinet decision reflects unanimous support or internal dissent, and how Washington will classify the rejection. Those unknowns will determine whether this is a temporary standoff, a negotiating ploy, or a deeper rupture in U.S.-Israel coordination.