Rebuilding Gaza but not Israel

On October 7, Hamas massacred more than a thousand Israelis and burned homes to the ground. Now Washington has a 21-point plan to end the war and rebuild Gaza. What it does not do is commit funds to rebuild the Israeli towns that were destroyed. That omission is unfair to Israelis.

Here is point 7.“Once this agreement is reached, aid will surge into the Strip at rates no lower than the benchmarks set in the January 2025 hostage deal, which included 600 trucks of aid per day, along with the rehabilitation of critical infrastructure and the entry of equipment for removing rubble.”

Point 9: “Gaza will be governed by a temporary, transitional government of Palestinian technocrats who will be responsible for providing day-to-day services for the people of the Strip. The committee… will establish a framework for funding the redevelopment of Gaza until the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program.

Point 10: “An economic plan will be created to rebuild Gaza through the convening of experts with experience in constructing modern Middle East cities and through the consideration of existing plans aimed at attracting investments and creating jobs,” etc!

There are 21 points, but none speak about funding the rebuilding of Israeli towns devastated by Hamas — as well as damage from Hezbollah and Iranian missiles. In other words, Israel is left to finance the repair and renewal of its own civilian infrastructure. Moreover, I have yet to hear a single Israeli politician condition Gaza’s reconstruction on binding, funded commitments to rebuild Israeli communities. Why?

On October 6, 2023, the prevailing mindset held that Israel’s enemies were deterred and Hamas would not launch a large-scale attack. That was clearly wrong. Israel now says it is shifting from reactive deterrence to a proactive doctrine: take the enemy’s stated intentions seriously and show zero tolerance for the buildup of hostile forces on Israel’s borders.

It’s right to pivot to preemption, but the shift can’t stop at operations; it must extend to financing and incentives. Since 2007, each round of fighting has been followed by large reconstruction packages that, critics argue, left Hamas risk-insulated — a dynamic satirized in The Mouse That Roared: provoke, lose, and get rebuilt “better than before,” while resources are allegedly diverted and military assets co-located near civilian sites.

To end the perverse incentives, Gaza reconstruction must be contingent on verifiable demilitarization and independent oversight — full stop. In parallel make the Arab nations that supported Hamas pay (twice) and create a dedicated, explicitly funded track to rebuild Israel’s devastated towns — schools, clinics, housing, and small businesses. Link the disbursements: Gaza aid moves only as Israeli recovery milestones are funded and met.

So let’s completely change the mindset and demand a twin-track package. Israel has begun its own recovery program, but Israeli taxpayers should not foot the bill for a war Israel did not start while an international plan finances Gaza’s rebuild. Pair the tracks and lock them together — or don’t call it a balanced framework.

Meanwhile, a recent op-ed argues that Israel should accept far-reaching diplomatic moves in exchange for international “security guarantees.” As Alex Winston puts it, if Western leaders recognize a Palestinian state, they must also answer whether they will guarantee Israel’s right to exist — otherwise recognition risks becoming “another dangerous illusion.”

But that’s the old mindset. We know they can’t; only we can.

What they can do is pay their share: tie any Gaza package to a parallel, funded track for rebuilding Israeli towns—on timelines no less concrete than Gaza’s. Otherwise, we’re right back to the old mindset.