Yeah, pretty much. This story goes into some details. If that's accurate, then the objections the Israelis have to the current plan boil down to:
They want the deal to allow them to keep fighting the war and keep troops in Gaza (after its terms are fully implemented, which generally isn't how a cease fire works)
They want to be able to keep Palestinians they have ("Iraeli veto over prisoners") while demanding the fast release of all Israelis that Hamas has ("Hamas has suggested a framework that would stretch out the hostage release")
This little section I think gets to the heart of it:
Israel has consistently opposed any deal that explicitly calls for a permanent cease-fire or an end to the war, and has said it would not agree to either until it felt its military offensive had achieved its goals. Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the Hamas timetable would commit Israel to ending the war while Hamas still holds hostages, leaving Israel without any leverage.
It's a very cunning little construction. The deal involves the release of all hostages, of course, in exchange for the end of the war. He's placing "commit Israel to ending the war" (after the deal) next to "Hamas still holds hostages" (before the deal) and getting all upset that they can't have the benefits of the deal before agreeing to their side of it, and also they want to avoid having to uphold substantive parts after agreeing to it.