The Arab League’s plan to rebuild the enclave is solid, but opposition from Israel and the US, as well as internal divisions, could bury it
Participants of the Emergency Arab League Summit in Cairo last week unanimously supported Egypt’s initiative for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, which has been devastated by the military conflict with Israel.
On March 4, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi announced the decision, emphasizing that the plan includes a $53 billion (€50.5 billion), five-year program aimed at rebuilding the enclave’s infrastructure. A fundamental principle of the initiative is ensuring that Gaza’s current population remains in place, without any forced relocations.
This approach starkly contrasts with the vision previously outlined by US President Donald Trump, who proposed transforming Gaza’s coastal areas into a “Middle Eastern Riviera” through the mass resettlement of its residents to “friendly” Arab nations. The American proposal faced strong opposition from Arab leaders, who condemned it as a violation of Palestinian rights.
Speaking at the summit’s opening, President el-Sisi stressed that a lasting peace in the Middle East is unattainable without the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state. He expressed hope that the United States would also contribute to conflict resolution, despite differing perspectives on the issue. “Peace cannot be imposed by force. It must be built on justice and the rights of nations,” the Egyptian leader stated.
A report assessing the damage inflicted on Gaza and its reconstruction needs recognizes two types of costs to various sectors: physical damages to the infrastructure and economic and social losses caused by the conflict. According to the study, the total damage amounts to $29.9 billion and the total losses to $19.1 billion.
In terms of damages, the housing sector has been hit the hardest at $15.8 billion – 53% of the overall destruction. The conflict has left 30,000 residential buildings in ruins, with 272,000 housing units completely destroyed and 58,500 partially damaged.
Satellite imagery analysis has revealed widespread devastation to Gaza’s infrastructure. A total of 1,190km of roads have been damaged, with 415km severely affected and 1,440km requiring extensive restoration. The healthcare sector has incurred $1.3 billion in damage, with losses estimated at $6.3 billion. Half of Gaza’s hospitals – 18 medical facilities – have been completely destroyed, while 17 others are only partially operational, making it impossible to meet the urgent medical needs of the population.
The education sector has also suffered immense losses, with damages amounting to $874 million and losses reaching $3.2 billion. Approximately 88% of schools have been destroyed, while the remaining educational institutions have been repurposed as temporary shelters for displaced families. Additionally, 51 university buildings have been reduced to rubble.
In the trade and industrial sectors, damages are estimated at $5.9 billion, with losses of $2.2 billion. The transportation sector has sustained $2.5 billion in damages, along with associated losses of $377 million. Water and sanitation infrastructure has been hit with $1.5 billion in damages, while losses amount to $64 million. Meanwhile, the energy sector has suffered $494 million in damages.
According to the Arab reconstruction plan, a total of $53 billion will be required for the full restoration of the Gaza Strip. Of this amount, $3 billion would be allocated for “early recovery” within the first six months. The largest funding needs are for the housing sector ($15.2 billion), healthcare, trade, and industry ($6.9 billion each), road infrastructure ($2.45 billion), and the energy sector ($1.5 billion). The restoration of education will require $3.8 billion, while agriculture and social protection will each need $4.2 billion. Additionally, $2.9 billion has been earmarked for the transportation sector, and $2.7 billion for the water supply and sanitation systems.
The plan also includes $1.25 billion for a four-stage process of debris removal, the disposal of unexploded ordnance, recycling, and reconstruction. The full reconstruction of Gaza is planned to take five years, with completion by 2030, and will be carried out in three phases.
The first phase focuses on debris clearance and preparing land for temporary population resettlement. It includes repairing 60,000 partially damaged homes, providing shelter for 360,000 people, and constructing 200,000 temporary housing units for 1.2 million people.
The second phase, spanning two years and requiring $20 billion, involves constructing 200,000 new housing units, developing infrastructure, completing debris removal, and restoring 60,000 homes, providing accommodation for 1.6 million people. Additionally, this phase includes the restoration of 2,000 hectares of agricultural land and the creation of essential service facilities.
The third phase, lasting 2.5 years with a budget of $30 billion, envisions the construction of another 200,000 housing units for 1.2 million people, further infrastructure development, the establishment of the first industrial zone covering 60 hectares, and the construction of fishing and commercial ports, as well as the reconstruction of Gaza’s airport. This phase also aims to create 500,000 jobs for Palestinians across various economic sectors.
This plan not only seeks to restore the destroyed infrastructure but also aims to foster the long-term development of Gaza, considering the needs of the population, which are projected to reach approximately 3 million by 2030.
The document underscores the importance of a two-state solution and highlights the necessity of rebuilding Gaza with respect for the rights of the Palestinian people. One of the plan’s key principles is the categorical rejection of any attempts to forcibly displace Palestinians from the enclave.
The document states that the Gaza Strip remains an integral part of the Palestinian territories, and any geographical separation from the West Bank would only exacerbate instability in the region. A major concern is the potential disregard for the suffering of the Palestinian people, which, according to the authors of the plan, could lead to a new escalation of the conflict.
Regarding governance during the reconstruction period, the plan calls for the establishment of a temporary administrative committee. Its role will be to prepare the conditions for the full return of the Palestinian National Authority to govern Gaza within six months. The international community is expected to support this structure to ensure it can successfully carry out its mission.
In order to maintain security in Gaza, Egypt and Jordan are developing a training program for Palestinian police forces. Once trained, these officers will assume their duties in the sector, with their operations requiring both political and financial backing from international and regional partners. Furthermore, the document suggests that the UN Security Council should consider deploying international peacekeeping forces to Palestinian territories, including Gaza and the West Bank.
The Arab Plan also calls for an end to unilateral actions such as Israeli settlement expansion, home demolitions, and military operations. It further stresses the importance of upholding the historical and legal status of sacred sites. The document concludes by stating that, with the necessary political will, the proposed measures for Gaza’s reconstruction can be successfully implemented.
At first glance, the proposed plan appears logical and well-structured; however, it carries a number of complex challenges. The key issue remains: who will govern Gaza once the conflict ends? Hamas has previously rejected any external intervention and the imposition of solutions on the Palestinian people, raising doubts about the feasibility of a peaceful transition of power.
Notably, this time Hamas has supported the initiative for Gaza, a decision driven by several factors.
First, Hamas’ official goal is the establishment of a Palestinian state, making it illogical to oppose an initiative that explicitly aims to achieve this outcome. Rejecting the proposed plan could weaken the group’s position as a defender of Palestinian interests.
Second, Hamas recognizes the gravity of the current situation. If it were to reject this initiative as well, it might find itself isolated against the Trump administration, which has taken an extremely hardline and radical stance on Gaza. Given these circumstances, supporting the proposed plan appears to be a pragmatic move for Hamas.
Moreover, it is important to consider that if the initiative does indeed lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, Hamas could integrate into the political and security structures of the future government, thereby maintaining its influence and legitimizing its role in governance. This makes the group’s support for the plan not only a tactical move but also a strategically advantageous decision.
The Cairo Plan also lacks clarity regarding the financing of Gaza’s reconstruction, the mechanisms for governing the enclave, and the means of neutralizing Hamas’s influence. According to the document, during an undefined transitional period, the Governance Assistance Mission would replace the Hamas-controlled government, taking responsibility for humanitarian aid and the initial phase of the region’s reconstruction.
The plan’s initiators emphasize the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state; however, they fail to address the deep fragmentation of Palestinian elites and the disunity of various armed factions. For the plan to succeed, a unified political structure representing the interests of the Palestinian people must be formed – a prospect that remains highly uncertain under current conditions.
Despite these challenges, the international community has shown support for the initiative. The foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom have endorsed the Arab-led reconstruction plan for Gaza, which is estimated to require $53 billion and aims to prevent the mass displacement of Palestinians. In a joint statement released on March 8 by Reuters, the ministers described the proposed plan as a “realistic pathway to Gaza’s reconstruction” that would ensure “rapid and sustainable improvements to the catastrophic living conditions in the enclave.”
However, both Israel and the US have opposed the plan, casting doubt regarding its feasibility. The disagreements on this issue highlight the depth of the political crisis and the difficulty of finding a compromise solution that would be acceptable to all parties involved.
The Trump administration, which is aligned with the far-right Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, is unlikely to allow the initiative to move forward, as Israel’s leadership appears to have entirely different plans for Gaza. The European powers’ support for the plan further underscores the growing rift between Washington and its European allies, which is becoming increasingly evident in their respective approaches to the Palestinian issue.
In summary, while the proposed plan appears attractive in theory, in practice, it is bound to clash with the competing interests of the world’s major powers, as well as with Israel’s unwillingness to compromise. As a result, this initiative risks suffering the same fate as the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 – remaining nothing more than an unfulfilled diplomatic declaration.
If one examines the issue of Gaza and Palestinian statehood in a broader geopolitical context, there is a high likelihood that the Trump-Netanyahu coalition will effectively “bury” the Palestinian question, pressuring Arab states to abandon any plans for securing a future for the Palestinian people. Such a scenario would only deepen the region’s already fragile stability, threatening the relative security of Egypt and Jordan and potentially triggering a large-scale regional conflict. At this point, all that remains is to observe how events unfold, hoping that the suffering of innocent civilians in the Middle East will finally come to an end and that lasting peace will be achieved. Unfortunately, with each passing day, this hope seems more and more like an unattainable utopia.
