Reconstruction of Gaza… A Battle Between Guardianship and Blackmail

The sounds of shelling had barely subsided in a false truce when political and administrative challenges emerged as the biggest obstacle to the launch of Gaza's reconstruction process. This time, the battle is not merely about building stones, but a battle of wills and interests where many parties intersect, each with its own agenda and vision for the post-war period. Reconstruction, which is supposed to be a symbol of mercy and human solidarity, has turned into a new arena of conflict between competing projects for Gaza's future: between those who want it to rise with its resistant people, and those who seek to reshape it to serve the security and strategic interests of the occupation.
From the first day of the ceasefire announcement, "politics first" was the rule that major powers wanted to impose on the reconstruction process. Western countries speak of their commitment to rebuilding, but they link this to political and security conditions that ensure monitoring of funding, restricting the flow of materials, and opening the door to direct or indirect supervision by international parties, in a clear attempt to diminish the role of the resistance and weaken its influence in the post-war phase. As for Israel, it sees the reconstruction file as a golden opportunity to re-establish its control through civilian and economic means, after failing to achieve a decisive military victory. It seeks to turn reconstruction into a tool of political blackmail, through which it imposes its indirect guardianship over Gaza by controlling the entry of building materials, the distribution of aid, and the identification of implementing parties, ensuring that the siege remains in a "soft" form that cloaks the occupation in the guise of humanitarian assistance.
In contrast, the Palestinian resistance affirms that the reconstruction of Gaza is a legitimate right that is non-negotiable, and that any attempt to link reconstruction to disarmament or the relinquishment of national rights represents unacceptable and exposed blackmail. Reconstruction is not a favor from anyone, but a continuation of the battle of steadfastness fought by the people, and an extension of the will to live that has not been broken despite the siege, bombing, and starvation. From this perspective, the ongoing conflict over who manages, funds, and supervises reconstruction is not a technical or administrative conflict, but essentially a battle over Gaza's political identity, and an attempt to impose new power balances under a humanitarian title.
Many countries have rushed to announce their readiness to participate in rebuilding, but the path to implementation is still fraught with obstacles. Israel imposes complex conditions that prevent the entry of materials it considers "dual-use," and controls crossings and passages in a way that makes any effort subject to its prior security approval. Amidst this complexity, the Arab position finds itself facing a real test: does it have the political will to overcome Israeli and international restrictions, or will it be content with the role of a conditional financier who adheres to plans drawn up in Tel Aviv and Washington more than in Arab capitals?
European countries, in turn, while showing readiness to participate in limited projects, do not hide their security and political concerns, and link their aid to ensuring that "armed factions do not benefit" from reconstruction funds, while the United States focuses on imposing strict control over every dollar entering the Strip, as if dealing with an accused community that must be held accountable before being helped. Here lies the blatant moral paradox: the West, which speaks of the "right to life" while legitimizing the killing of civilians, then dictates to the victims how they should rebuild their homes.
The battle for reconstruction in Gaza is essentially not just a race to rebuild what the war destroyed, but a real test of international and Arab will, and an examination of the sincerity of the slogans raised in the name of humanity. It is a battle to determine who holds the decision in Gaza, and who shapes its future features: Is it the resistant Gaza that rose from under the rubble to continue defending its right and dignity, or the "reconstructed" Gaza under the conditions of the occupier, constrained by aid and international guardianship?
In the end, it can be said that the reconstruction of Gaza will not be merely an engineering process to repair what was destroyed, but a new chapter in the Palestinian struggle for existence, a battle between those who want Gaza to remain a symbol of freedom and steadfastness, and those who seek to transform it into a fragile economic model, stripped of will, living on crumbs of aid and under the ceiling of security surveillance. Between these two options, the reliance will remain on the awareness of the Palestinian people and their ability to protect their national project, so that reconstruction remains a tool for advancement, not a means of taming and blackmail.