• The author is a faculty member at the Amasya University Center for Social and Strategic Research.

ISTANBUL

Over the past two years, Gaza has witnessed a genocide and one of the most devastating acts of destruction in modern history by Israel, watched live by the entire world. Nearly two million people were left homeless while the city’s structure, infrastructure systems, healthcare and education institutions, along with all aspects of social life, were paralyzed by IDF (Israeli army) attacks. International law and global institutions failed to fulfill their responsibilities during this period of devastation. And now the world will face new tests. Both global and regional actors have primary responsibilities: First, to pressure Israel to observe a ceasefire, and second, to help coordinate the rebuilding process of Gaza. Reconstruction is not only about repairing or rebuilding physical structures. It also requires a political framework that ensures social healing, a humane life, freedom, sovereignty, and the foundation for lasting peace. Therefore, the reconstruction of Gaza should not be seen merely as a matter of construction. It must also be understood as a struggle for dignity, belonging, and justice.

How will Gaza be rebuilt, and what kind of process lies ahead?

Rebuilding Gaza after the ceasefire will be a highly complex process both technically and diplomatically. The first priority is to assess the full extent of the damage caused by Israeli attacks. According to the UN and other international organizations, Gaza has seen the worst destruction of civilian infrastructure since World War II. Therefore, short-term humanitarian aid alone will not suffice. Gaza needs a long-term and sustainable development plan.

The future of this development process depends mainly on political factors. As long as Israel maintains its blockade, pressure and infringements of international law on Gaza, international aid will remain insufficient, and reaching those in need will be difficult. Key elements in shaping the process include the control mechanism at the Rafah crossing, the UN’s coordination capacity, financial support from Qatar, and technical support from Türkiye. During the transition, people must move from temporary shelters to permanent homes. Infrastructure, from energy to education, must be rebuilt under a coordinated and sophisticated plan. The international community must not only rebuild Gaza but also help prevent future IDF attacks. Without a political solution, reconstruction will be pointless, just buildings waiting for the next Israeli assault. Rebuilding Gaza is not simply a construction effort but a historic test of international justice, regional cooperation, and human conscience.

Which countries or institutions should provide funding for reconstruction?

Rebuilding Gaza requires financial resources, but a transparent and sustainable funding structure is just as crucial. In the past, models like donor conferences were used in similar cases, but such methods may not be enough for Gaza. This time, the system must be multilayered, reliable, and focused on long-term development. A framework built on supporting pillars could deliver more effective results.

The first pillar could involve states that support the Palestinian people and reflect regional solidarity, such as Türkiye, Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. These actors could take the lead in providing humanitarian and technical funding. A core fund could emerge if Gulf financial power is combined with Türkiye’s technical expertise, especially in construction, healthcare, and education. Egypt’s role in border management could further strengthen the effort. Together, these countries may shape the most critical early stages of reconstruction.

The second pillar should include international institutions. Development-focused agencies like the UNDP and organizations like the World Bank and Islamic Development Bank must join the process through project-based grants and free or low-interest loans. These institutions also bring necessary tools like technical standards and monitoring mechanisms. Such tools will help ensure accountability, transparency, and sustainability.

A transparent framework like a "Gaza Reconstruction Fund" could be created to coordinate funding. The fund should be run by local Palestinian institutions with international oversight and support. This would improve financial efficiency and allow better use of local capacity. Without proper supervision, large budgets given to local actors risk being wasted and key opportunities lost.

Who will cover the cost of Gaza’s reconstruction?

This is not only a political or economic issue; it must also be answered through legal and moral responsibility. From the perspective of international law, the party that systematically destroys civilian areas, targets infrastructure, and uses disproportionate force is obligated to cover the cost of reconstruction. This principle is outlined in several multinational resolutions related to post-war reparations. In the case of Gaza, Israel—the main perpetrator of the destruction—should be the primary party responsible both legally and morally. However, despite these legal and moral norms, the current political reality points in another direction. Israel’s domestic political dynamics, its long-standing policy of avoiding international investigations, and its security discourse that lacks accountability all make it difficult for any compensation or reparations mechanism to function. Still, the international community has ways to enforce this responsibility through indirect mechanisms. For example, a portion of Israel’s frozen assets in global markets could be transferred to a future Gaza Reconstruction Fund. Mandatory contributions to compensation pools under the UN or the reallocation of Palestinian tax revenues withheld under Israeli control are legal tools that should be considered. Activating such tools could also help deter future acts of aggression by Israel.

Another issue that requires great sensitivity is the involvement of Israel in the reconstruction process. If Israel is included in a way that questions the political legitimacy of the process or damages the dignity of the Palestinian people, it would be unacceptable. Any role for Tel Aviv should be strictly limited to technical responsibilities, and only within a framework under international supervision. Otherwise, reconstruction could turn into a new tool of control for Israel, creating a new cycle of dependence rather than a genuine recovery. A fair and effective reconstruction model must hold Israel accountable and put the will of the Palestinian people at the center of the process.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu