Donald Trump's plan for Gaza was supposed to move the territory towards a new post-war order.
Instead, it is increasingly becoming a test of how far the US president is willing to push Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the centre of the dispute are some of the most consequential parts of the plan: Israeli military withdrawal, the deployment of an international force, and the transfer of civilian administration to a Palestinian body.
While Netanyahu has not rejected the plan outright, analysts say he is instead seeking to slow it down, balancing pressure from Washington against an Israeli right that opposes relinquishing military control over Gaza.
Palestinian specialist on Israeli affairs Firas Yaghi told The New Arab that there was a "real struggle" over who would hold political and security decision-making power in Gaza after the war.
He said Netanyahu was working to "delay and reshape" Trump's plan to fit the Israeli position.
Israel's elections
A roadmap announced by Trump and the US-led Peace Council at the end of July calls for a new Palestinian administration in Gaza, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the disarmament of Hamas and other armed factions, and the deployment of an International Stabilisation Force.
Hamas, the Palestinian armed and political movement that governed Gaza before the war, has accepted the roadmap in principle, while saying the second phase depends on Israel first fulfilling obligations including opening crossings and allowing aid to flow.
Netanyahu rejected the Peace Council's 15-point plan last month.
Haaretz has since reported that Israeli officials, with his backing, are obstructing its implementation and refusing to cooperate fully with the Peace Council.
One example is the Erez crossing in northern Gaza.
Germany supplied Israel with an advanced scanning system intended to facilitate its reopening for aid deliveries. But Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz later said there were no instructions to open the crossing to goods, and the project stalled.
Israel is due to hold parliamentary elections on 27 October.
Ahmed al-Tanani, a Palestinian political affairs specialist, told The New Arab that Netanyahu is seeking to avoid concessions that his rivals could use against him.
Allowing an international force into Gaza or withdrawing Israeli troops could reopen arguments about what the war actually achieved, he said, and put renewed scrutiny on Netanyahu's promise of "total victory".
Al-Tanani said Israel did not want the international force to enter Gaza because its presence could restrict the Israeli military's freedom of movement and mark a step towards an Israeli withdrawal from areas of the territory.
He argued that the United States had the ability to apply greater pressure, but had not yet reached the point of using "overwhelming pressure".
The disagreement, in his assessment, remains tactical rather than strategic.
Washington wants to preserve the ceasefire and move towards a new political framework, while Israel wants to retain as much security freedom as possible.
Who controls Gaza?
The most important dispute may be over security authority. The US plan envisages international forces playing a role alongside a Palestinian administration and police force. Netanyahu's right-wing coalition, by contrast, has opposed giving up Israeli security control in Gaza.
That puts some of the plan's central elements in direct conflict with the political position of his government.
Yaghi said the US administration was seeking to move towards the second phase, including disarmament, Palestinian administration, reconstruction, security arrangements and the management of crossings.
The Israeli government, he said, is trying to modify how those measures would work.
One proposal is a system of Lebanese-style "pilot zones".
Yedioth Ahronoth reported that Israel was considering designated areas inside Gaza, agreed with the United States, where international forces would enter and "clear" weapons and armed infrastructure before a new civilian administration was established.
Hamas members would be prevented from returning to those areas.
The idea resembles arrangements being discussed in southern Lebanon, where international involvement would be introduced gradually rather than through an immediate transfer of control across an entire territory.
But even that model would require the presence of the International Stabilisation Force, a Palestinian administrative committee and Palestinian police.
Those are precisely the arrangements Netanyahu is currently reluctant to implement.
Both al-Tanani and Yaghi argue that the dispute does not amount to a fundamental break between Trump and Netanyahu.
Instead, it reflects different priorities. Trump wants to show that the ceasefire can be converted into a broader political achievement. Netanyahu wants to preserve Israeli military freedom and avoid steps that could damage his standing with the right before elections.
The Israeli prime minister is therefore trying to avoid two risks at once: appearing to defy a supportive US administration, while also appearing to surrender control over Gaza.
That balancing act may explain why implementation has slowed rather than collapsed. But it also means the future of the plan could depend heavily on Israeli politics and the fate of Benjamin Netanyahu.