It seems to me that the time has arrived to ask the question that I am not seeing asked almost anywhere, which is, who will pay to rebuild Gaza, and under what terms will that money be spent?
Gaza is in ruins. Entire neighbourhoods have been levelled. It is reported that 92% of houses are damaged or destroyed. Hospitals and schools are shattered, and water and power infrastructure have been deliberately targeted. According to a joint assessment by the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank, reconstruction over the next decade will require about $53 billion. That report concludes that more than $50 billion is needed just to restore basic infrastructure and services.
Such a sum is beyond the capacity of the Palestinians themselves. But the quantum of the sum involved is not the heart of the issue in this case. The real question is who will supply and control those funds, who will write the rules, and who will benefit? Answering these questions is essential if we are to know who is going to control the real fate of the people of Gaza, and maybe the West Bank.
The proposals currently on the table
A survey of the known plans for rebuilding is deeply discouraging.
One plan is the so-called GREAT Trust, or the 'Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation' scheme, which is what Trump has been discussing with the likes of Tony Blair, as explained here. That plan envisions a ten-year trusteeship over Gaza, external oversight on project execution, and the use of international intermediaries and private investment. The Arab Centre in Washington, D.C., has described this plan as a 'blueprint for dispossession'. It proposes 'voluntary' relocation of Palestinians during reconstruction, limits their role in decision-making, and centres external actors in governing and designing Gaza's post-war economy.
Another approach comes from Arab states, and most notably Egypt, who seek to position the Palestinian Authority at the centre of reconstruction. Reuters reports that these Arab actors are trying to counter proposals by the United States, but have not yet resolved key questions such as who will foot the bill and how Gaza will be governed.
What is more, even in this proposal, conditionality features heavily. Audits, security guarantees, and political oversight are all demanded. So far, every blueprint being proposed for Gaza has implicit strings within it, and very often explicit limits on Palestinian agency.
Meanwhile, Trump's envoy has publicly admitted that rebuilding Gaza may take ten to fifteen years, citing the sheer scale of destruction, the presence of unexploded ordnance, and the absence of water or electricity. The £53 billion cost estimate looks like a massive underestimate in that case.
Why who pays is inseparable from who rules
Three points emerge from this. The first is how scant the proposals are.
The second is the absence of European interest.
The third is the apparent denial of any responsibility on the part of Israel, which brought about this destruction.
These points matter because it would be a mistake to treat the issue of funding as a technical problem that is distinct from the issue of the future governance of Gaza and the West Bank. governance. The process of reconstruction will grant those undertaking the task immense influence and maybe power. As ever, how money flows is likely to determine who shapes society. That is what happens in the political economy.
That said, the conditionality of this funding is almost inevitable. Donors never hand over large sums without demands for oversight and controls. If reconstruction is, in that case, managed by foreign trustees or private intermediaries, as Trump implies should be the case, those conditions could amount to a de facto right to govern. In that case, exclusion is likely.
However, if in any scenario, Palestinians are marginalised in planning, or reduced to recipients rather than being the authors of the rebuilding of their own country, there is a real risk of a new form of technocratic occupation. The GREAT Trust scenario clearly suggests the reconstruction process might override local priorities in favour of investor or security agendas, but other proposals carry the same risk, albeit in different ways. Whatever happens, it might be that whoever contributes the most will likely demand the tightest controls.
In this context, Gaza's current, and inevitable, weak institutional base leaves it especially vulnerable. Without strong, transparent institutions and citizen oversight, it is obvious that abuse could take place. How to address this issue is, then, an undeniable priority while also making clear that who pays is not just an arithmetic question; it is about who governs, who is empowered, and whose interests are inscribed in the rebuilt territory.
Norms and principles that must guide reconstruction
So, what should the ground rules for the rebuilding of Gaza be? My suggestions are as follows, for what they're worth.
-
Liability must rest with the aggressor
Gaza was not destroyed by nature. It was destroyed by bombardment, siege, and military incursions. In any just reconstruction, the primary obligation lies with those who caused the destruction. Demanding reparations from Israel, and from those states materially complicit in what happened, must be the default approach to this issue, and not an afterthought if the people of Gaza are not to be made to suffer again for what has happened to them.
-
Palestinian agency must be central, not peripheral
Every plan must centre on Palestinian institutions and civil society. Reconstruction must be Palestinian-led in design, implementation and oversight. External actors can assist, but must not supplant local decision-making. That the necessary skills exist, I do not doubt. The people of Gaza have proved their resilience.
-
Donor funding should come with less sovereignty intrusion, not more
Conditions on transparency, oversight and accountability of funds provided are entirely legitimate. However, conditions on governance, political alignment, social design, or forced demographic change are most definitely not. Donors must resist micromanaging sovereignty.
-
Strong accountability and real-time oversight are essential
Reconstruction must not be a black box. Independent audits, participatory monitoring, dispute mechanisms, and public redress must be built in from the start. This is not just for the sake of external donors. This is vital to rebuilding faith amongst the people of Gaza that they can take control of their own future in an accountable fashion, simultaneously rebuilding their confidence in their own systems of governance.
-
Reconstruction must avoid displacement, demographic engineering, or exclusion
There must be no forced relocations, no land grabbing, and no engineered depopulation of communities in Gaza as a result of the rebuilding process. Reconstruction cannot be a cover for demographic restructuring. Israel's desire for ethnic cleansing must be seen to fail. That is essential to any plan. The ethic must be repair, restitution and restoration, but not erasure.
A possible roadmap and the tensions ahead
A just reconstruction process might then proceed along these lines:
-
A reparations mechanism should be established, perhaps under United Nations auspices or an international tribunal, to hold Israel accountable for reconstruction costs.
-
An Arab-led regional fund, backed by multilateral guarantees, should collect pledges to rebuild Gaza, maintaining regional agency rather than leaving control in distant capitals.
-
Gaza's own institutions, whether they be the Palestinian Authority, its municipalities, or civil society bodies, must be central in planning, contracting, oversight and dispute resolution.
-
Multilateral bodies such as the World Bank and UN agencies should provide technical capacity and credibility, but work with and report to the Palestinian Authority.
-
A standing oversight body, maybe a Gaza Reconstruction Tribunal, should monitor contracts, manage disputes, and publish real-time transparency reports. This is vital.
-
Any external investor involvement, including public-private partnerships, must be strictly regulated and subject to Palestinian oversight. Nothing less will do.
-
Conditionality in funding must focus solely on accountability, anti-corruption and adherence to human rights and not on political alignment, security mandates or demographic control.
In implementing such a process, tensions are bound to arise, but allowing those pressures to dictate the process would concede reconstruction as a terrain of domination. The rules of justice must be embedded in everything that has to be done, and justice in this case must mean justice for the people of Gaza who have already suffered more than enough.
The real choice we face
In the coming months, many people will try to shape Gaza's recovery, but the real question will always be not how to rebuild, but who will write the rules governing the rebuilding.
If reconstruction proceeds without reparations, without Palestinian sovereignty, and without genuine oversight, it will not deliver peace. It will entrench dependency. Gaza would, in that case, be redesigned to serve external interests rather than its own people. There will be no solution to what has happened in that case, and such a situation will only encourage the recurrence of conflict.
Rebuilding Gaza without justice is, then, not reconstruction at all. Would, instead, be preparation for the next round of conflict and destruction. If we are serious about a future in which Gaza is free, equitable and sustainable, four principles must hold. They are that:
- The aggressor pays
- The people of Gaza decide
- Oversight is transparent, and
- Reconstruction is grounded in repair, not conquest.
Then we might have hope. Is that possible? Time will tell.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.s
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thanks for this Richard. I doubt that anyone else has produced such a clear, comprehensive and coherent set of proposals that target the moral and practical issues involved in producing anything approaching a “solution” to the horrific disaster inflicted on the people of Gaza. And of course there is still the “problem” of the West Bank.
Yesterday afternoon wasn’t wasted then.
Was Hamas not the aggressor?
No. I have condemned what it did. It was wrong. But never doubt this has ever since been all about Netanyahu’s desire for war to stay out of jail. You have to be especially blinded by ideology not to see that.
Which particular period between 1947 and the present were you referring to, and which particular locations?
Also you you need to define “aggressor”, with particular reference to international law on defence against occupation.
Also, with reference to Oct 7th 2023 you would need to join a difficult discussion about what actually happened on and around that day.
In 1948? You illiterate or a Zion apologist?
There was a world before October 7th 2023. In that world Israel regularly killed Palestinian children – 126 in 2023 – https://www.dci-palestine.org/child_fatalities_by_month. That is not to mention. the adults killed or detained as “prisoners” usually without trial, and if there was a trial then it was a military one, not civilian. On top of that is the daily humiliations at checkpoints, often preventing children being able to attend school, the separation of Palestinians from their lands and olive groves, etc etc. So in your world you may view Hamas as the aggressor. In my world (and that of Amnesty and the UN as far back as 2022) Israel has been an apartheid state, constantly abusing Palestinians.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114702
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/
However the opportunity for corruption is huge. From the local civil servants up to and including large multinational companies, and even President Trumps own family and organisations, vying for a piece of the £53 billion prize
The US had no difficulty in finding money for bombs and missiles . According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, US aid amounted to $17.9 billion. Before then it was giving four billion a year.
Sadly it is unlikely they would come up with a similar sum for reconstruction. They would insist on oversight.
I agree with your four principles. I am hopeful that the region and even the wider world will have more of a say than Trump’s people think at present.
Then there is the continuing annexation of the West Bank. How long can the international community tolerate a de-facto member of the UN being treated as they are?
Good
I wish I could answer that.
It seems to me that:
1. There has been a significant reduction in the murder rate in Gaza, but it continues including by aerial bombardment yesterday.
2. Violence and land-grabs in West Bank, E. Jerusalem and other OTs are escalating.
3. Over 2m Gazans, overcrowded before Oct 7th, 2023, are now expected to “live” in half the space, with zero civil infrastructure and no income. Israel is annexing half the territory.
4. There is urgent need for clean water, sanitation, primary healthcare, food, shelter for >2m hungry ill humans.
5. The people of Gaza are at the back of the queue in the decision-making processes.
6. All hostages, whether in Gaza or Israel, must be released.
Israel and allies are not particularly concerned about this – we brought about the destruction in the first place and we devote much energy to silencing Palestinian voices. Is that going to change except cosmetically?
The international community should take over border crossings from Israel, and enforce free access by sea and air (Gaza does have a defunct airport).
UN organisations should assume control of emergency relief. As soon as possible, local people who are well enough should be recruited at all levels of relief and reconstruction including management, decision-making and state-building.
The war crimes must be dealt with, but probably won’t be. We need a special tribunal.
All of us to prioritise opinion and welfare of people of Gaza, and that applies as much to nations as it does to activists and advocates. This is not OUR cause, it is theirs.
Access for observers and international media NOW, our western media must not shrink from telling the truth. It will be revolting and shocking and ought to rock the foundations of our own society. In my own faith community, there will either be deep shock and shame, and, I hope, deep repentance, or further hardening of hearts, facilitated by closing of eyes and ears.
Iraq stands as a terrible reminder of how BADLY this can be done. We must do better this time. (No thanks TBI, please go home and shut up. Please leave a few anonymous millions on the table for UNICEF before you leave, similarly fascist dictator Trump).
This is not over. This is not yet even a ceasefire, let alone lasting peace with justice. But it is an opportunity.
Much to agree with
Palestinian people have had decisions made for them since 1917.
I understand there was no Palestinian input to this latest ‘peace process’.
A good place to start would be to get some ordinary Palestinian people around a table and ask them what they want.
No chance of that happening.
Rebuilding Gaza is not just a question of dollars and bricks, It’s a contest over narrative, power, and legitimacy. You are absolutely right: whoever pays will largely decide who rules, who benefits, and what version of “what happened” becomes accepted history. In that struggle, the media, and here in the UK, particularly the BBC, must do better.
Too often in this conflict, stories emerge fast, sometimes sensationally, then persist even when later evidence shows they were false, incomplete, or misleading. Claims like all hostages being combatants; reports of beheaded babies; claims that Israeli forces never harmed their own people. These weren’t just mistakes, they shaped public opinion. They gave cover to policies of territorial expansion, harsh military measures, and weakened demands for accountability.
If the reconstruction process is to be just and not another form of occupation in all but name, UK media guardians must:
Demand full transparency: press for forensic investigations, whistle-blower testimony, and open military records.
Correct early misreporting aggressively: if a claim is debunked, the BBC especially should ensure the correction is as prominent as the original.
Unearth the conditions behind “external oversight”: who is proposing trusteeships, what oversight or security strings are being attached, and how these connect with prior claims of “voluntary relocation,” political restructuring or demographic engineering.
The BBC must resist becoming a mouthpiece for vested interests. It should carefully scrutinize plans presented by governments, donor funds, international trusts (like the “GREAT Trust”), and all economic assessments, and ask: Whose voice is missing? Whose agency is being sidelined?
To rebuild Gaza fairly demands not just reparations and Palestinian leadership, it demands rigorous journalism. Without media willing to call out abuse, acknowledge error, and hold power to account, the architecture of reconstruction will also become the foundations for erasure.
Justice in rebuilding begins with telling the truth. The BBC and UK media must make that their non-negotiable role.
I wish your final suggestion was acted upon.
It’s structural compliance. A kind of institutional self-censorship that privileges a false perception of stability over truth. It must end.
I’ve never uderstood why aid donors feel they have a right to control the recipients of their donation.
The money is the donor’s until they give it away, presumably to recipients they trust and approve of, so the recipients can then use it to make the world a better place, as they, the locals, see fit? The donors exercise their free choice in whether to give, and who to give to. But after that it is no longer their money and they shouldn’t blackmail the recipients with controlling threats or demands to interfere.
In this case, the moral obligation is not on the recipients to kow-tow to the donors, but on the donors to fulfil decades-long obligations to the recipients – this should be seen as reparations, not aid from “Nation Bountiful”.
I’m naive aren’t I.
But that’s how MY giving works and I reckon the same applies to most people here.
Of course, these donors may see it as investment and themselves as shareholders expecting a dividend. Pardon me while I turn away to vomit…
Great article!
I’ve always been suspicious of the involvement of Peter Thiel and his ilk in this whole affair. Putting my tinfoil hat on, perhaps Gaza is being looked at as a potential site for a tax free haven for billionaires, like Greenland. Very conspiratorial I know, but I can’t help but consider it. On another note, watch out for Israel’s disgustingly distasteful propaganda adverts doing rounds on YouTube .
In 1914 Germany was the aggressor. In 1919, the desire to make Germany pay for WW1 led to the imposition of reparations, which was followed by enormous inflation, followed by election of Hitler, followed by WWII. What’s different with Israel/Gaza? Reparations seem morally appropriate, but don’t necessarily produce a good outcome.
But some are surely unconditionally due? I am not saying all are due by Israel: the US, UK and many others owe as well. But Israel has to accept responsibility.
“In 1914 Germany was the aggressor.”
Nope.
Russia decided to mobilise 1st – against Germany – and was doing it for days before the Germans reacted. The Treaty the French had with the Russians (why) pulled them into the war etc. As A J P Taylor remarked on the origins of WW1 – the Kaiser could not have organised a masked ball. The origins of WW1 are, to say the least murky. But we can say, with certainty, is that events in WW1 led directly to the current genocide in Gaza and the horrible mess in the West Bank/Palestine and that the Uk has direct responsibility via the imbecilic twins Balfour and Lloyd George. There are a couple of others as well.
At the beginning of July 1914 no one expected world war. In early August the BEF was in France. The whole descent into war was crazy
Russia had backed down once before. Austro-Hungary was preparing to invade Serbia and Russia regarded themselves as a protector. Germany could have urged restraint on the Austrians but chose to back them.
So I would put Germany higher on the list of reasons. The notion of national honour is perhaps a deeper reason. But there are levels of responsibility for historians to debate-but not here.
to apologise for posting again I agree Britain is largely responsible for Gaza although there was a Zionist presence already there. The British Palestine Project on the web has many of the basic sources.
I would imagine that the £53bn is a very conservative estimation, it could well be much higher.
Removing all the huge quantities of rubble take years and hundreds of lorries heavy plant machinery. Also clearing all the mines and booby traps. Having war criminal Blair involved spells disaster.
Well said Richard – no wonder I come here first before NOT reading the useless newspapers or listening to the radio anymore – you have raised all the right questions.
My view is that this is that we have a model already and it is post Saddam Iraq. Lots of money to be made, but perhaps not so much for the Palestinians? If Blair is involved, I think I’ll be physically sick. And they think that they will have peace?
Well, they may well have pieces of land but not ‘peace’. Sorry.
I agree with you.
That was a part of my approach to this, plus knowledge of governance and theories related to it, corruption and power dynamics.
In her book “Shock Doctrine”, Naomi Klein describes the ending of the apartheid system in South Africa. It’s some time since I read it, but if memory serves, there were two negotiating strands: one political and one economic. It was the political one that got the attention and which seemed to those involved to be of utmost importance. But it was the less regarded economic negotiation which limited what the incoming ANC government was really able to accomplish. So the issue of who funds the rebuilding, who determines how funds are spent, and what the terms are is all vital. Sadly, I’m not anticipating this is really the start of the peace the whole Middle East region deserves. I hope I’m wrong.
A very good piece Richard – I don’t think most people have really begun to think about this. I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel believes it has already made sure that a viable Palestine State is impossible. The half a million illegal settlers in the West Bank, the bulldozed fragmentation of the rest of the West Bank, and now the utter destruction of Gaza has made sure of that.
The idea of ‘reparations’ by Israel and UK/US / Germany who have been complicit in the genocide and/or war crimes should follow from the horrors of the last two years, but how on earth will that happen?
I go back to Edward Said the American-Palestinian academic who I heard at Hay festival decades ago and who very clearly said the ‘two state solution’ was bound to fail – it was always a project for one state and a subordinate entity that wasn’t really a state. The Palestinians were and still are regarded as ‘Orientals’ – an inferior species to the European / US Israelis.
And even then, he f predicted that Israel would want to ‘finish the job’ and get rid of Palestinians altogether , from the ‘River to the Sea’ , which many of their leaders now openly proclaim.
So somehow – the reconstruction of Gaza has got to be wrapped into a plan for reconstruction and self government of the West Bank. Only if the US and Arab states decide to stop the Greater Israel project is there any prospect of this happening.
Your thoughts are an excellent start – but the future still looks pretty dire.
I share your pessimism, but live in hope.
Not at all sure that the ceasefire will hold – there is a precedent for this already this year.
According to a report in the Guardian this morning, Netanyahu has said ” Hamas will be disarmed….if this is achieved the easy way so much the better. And if not, it will be achieved the hard way.”
I now see from the BBC that 7000 Hamas fighters (presumably armed) have been recalled to Gaza to police the areas vacated by the IDF.
Will the ceasefire be broken after the release of hostages? Wouldn’t be surprised – hope I am wrong.
I think the chance of the ceasefire holding beyond a week next Tuesday is very low indeed. It could be Monday. I just mean very soon.
Sound suggestions Richard. I fear that like every situation where money is concerned certain people will be either directly or indirectly involved. Those that have allways wont more and sod everyone else.
Keep doing what you are doing eventually enough people will start to realise than the western monetary system needs a total rethink.
Thanks
“They make a desert and call it peace”.
2,000 year old aphorism was never more true. As to who will pay, I think the stance of the Gulf states has been invidious all along. It seems clear they couldn’t care less about the fate of their Palestinian cousins.
If they did, $53 billion you quote above for reconstruction would be a trivial sum, less than KSA has spent on sportwashing in the last decade and 1/4 of the $220bn Qatar spent on the World Cup 2022.
But if they really want to add insult to injury they really would put Blair of Basra in charge of it all.
Might it be equitable and salutary, but extremely unlikely, if the organisations, which supplied the government of Israel with the arms, munitions, explosives and money with which to smash up Gaza, made a significant contribution?
How could they not have known the direct consequennces of their products and services?
I must confess I was mystified when you raised the question of who would pay for the restoration of Gaza. It is obvious to me that the money should come from the profits made by those who manufactured the arms that produced the devastation.
It will take some organising. Your template is a good starting point. I would be tempted to bring in China with its vast resources and no axe to grind. They are used to massive building projects. In the meantime, most Palestinians need somewhere to live while their homeland is rebuilt. Refugee camps in Egypt and Cyprus, possibly Turkey can be set up in line with those in Lebanon and Jordan. Other Mediterranean countries could take a quota and help spread the load. Even European countries could take people as refugees on temporary visas. The UN would need to get involved along with many other international agencies.
As to who pays, the Chinese will cover the costs of rebuilding provided they are compensated. The USA will also want a large stake, as will the oil-rich Gulf states. Israel will be expected to contribute a great deal. It’s certainly a daunting, yet achievable project that will provide economic benefits for many as well as a new land for Palestinians.
Palestinians do not want to leave. They reasonably fear they will never be allowed back.
On what basis can a Palestinian trust ANY country or organisation?
A good question.
“Refugee camps in Egypt and Cyprus, possibly Turkey can be set up in line with those in Lebanon and Jordan.”
Why not Mauritania or Madagascar? They were popular options once upon a time for an “othered” population which was to be resettled elsewhere, before they were eventually moved to many and various “zones of interest”.
You presumably know perfectly well that once gone from Palestine the poor, benighted Palestinians haven’t a chance of being allowed back. Why pretend otherwise, if indeed you are?
Your suggestions for the future of Palestine are sensible and worth due consideration. However, Israel will not observe the ceasefire and would be certain to violently resist anything that gave the Palestinians their sovereignty.