SAFA — The apparent contradiction between Washington’s insistence on implementing the Gaza ceasefire agreement and advancing to its second phase, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of key elements of the framework, has raised questions over whether the two sides are genuinely at odds or engaged in a calculated division of roles.

U.S. officials have reiterated their commitment to implementing the 15 provisions of President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan, while Netanyahu has imposed conditions that could obstruct or alter the agreement, including making what he calls the “disarmament” of Palestinian resistance factions a prerequisite for moving forward.

This position runs counter to the U.S.-sponsored framework, which calls for gradual and reciprocal implementation, with each stage accompanied by corresponding Israeli obligations, including withdrawal measures and provisions concerning the storage of heavy weapons in Gaza under Palestinian supervision.

Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander Brad Cooper reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the 15-point Gaza agreement and said the United States would work to implement it as agreed.

Cooper made the remarks following a visit to the U.S. headquarters in Israel, where he met with hundreds of American troops and representatives of the multinational force expected to operate in Gaza during the second phase.

Political analyst Ibrahim Musallam said Palestinian factions had approached the ceasefire agreement and Trump’s plan with a “high degree of responsibility,” maintaining a unified position focused on ending the war and implementing the agreement.

Musallam told Felesteen newspaper that the priorities include implementing the humanitarian protocol, ending attacks against Palestinians, ensuring Israeli compliance with the roadmap, allowing the administrative committee to begin its work, completing the withdrawal and launching reconstruction.

He said the factions had demonstrated considerable flexibility and argued that Israel was failing to honor its commitments.

Musallam believes Netanyahu does not want the agreement fully implemented and is seeking to delay it until the Israeli elections to avoid the potential domestic political consequences of accepting the deal.

According to Musallam, Netanyahu may fear that implementing the agreement would be portrayed by his opponents as a retreat or a victory for Gaza, potentially damaging his political future.

He warned that Israeli rejection of the framework could return the situation to square one and potentially revive the military track, although such a move could put Netanyahu at odds with Trump and regional mediators.

“Escaping Forward”

Israeli affairs specialist Amin Al-Hajj said the current situation reflects a clash between U.S. pressure to end prolonged regional instability through the 15-point agreement and Netanyahu’s attempt to preserve his governing coalition.

Al-Hajj told Felesteen that the contradiction between CENTCOM’s reaffirmation of the agreement and Netanyahu’s rejection may represent more than a simple political disagreement.

He suggested it could amount to a deliberate division of roles, with Netanyahu publicly raising his demands to contain pressure from Israel’s far right while Washington continues to emphasize its commitment to the agreement.

According to Al-Hajj, the resulting stalemate benefits Netanyahu by allowing him to delay implementation while placing additional pressure on Palestinian factions.

He said the factions have responded with tactical flexibility, prioritizing the protection of Palestinian lives and the alleviation of humanitarian suffering while maintaining their broader political positions.

Their approval of the roadmap in Cairo, he argued, was intended to send a positive message to mediators and place responsibility for obstructing the agreement on Israel.

Israeli Concerns

Al-Hajj said Israel fears that implementing the agreement could provide Palestinian resistance factions with breathing space and undermine some of its war objectives.

He argued that Netanyahu’s introduction of additional conditions represents an attempt to secure politically what Israel failed to achieve militarily and to obstruct implementation through demands that Palestinian factions are unlikely to accept.

Al-Hajj said the mediators, particularly the United States, possess significant security and financial leverage over Israel but have so far lacked the political will to use it decisively.

He argued that mediators must move beyond statements of commitment and take concrete steps to enforce the agreement, although he considers such action unlikely before the Israeli elections or U.S. midterm elections.

Without stronger pressure, he said, Netanyahu could continue delaying implementation.

Al-Hajj also accused Israel of pursuing a strategy of partial and selective implementation, accepting limited provisions while continuing military operations at a lower intensity under the stated justification of eliminating threats and targeting resistance infrastructure.

He argued that such an approach could ultimately strip the agreement of its broader political substance and reduce it to security arrangements serving Israeli interests.

According to Al-Hajj, Netanyahu is unlikely to fully implement the agreement voluntarily because of the potential consequences for his political future. He said meaningful implementation would therefore require either stronger U.S. pressure or developments on the ground that make continued obstruction more costly than accepting the agreement.