Can Science Redevelop Gaza? A Critical Look at the GREAT Trust Proposal
When wars end, the hardest part often comes after: rebuilding lives, homes, and ecosystems shattered by violence. A new proposal, reported by The Washington Post, the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation (GREAT) Trust, lays out an ambitious vision for Gaza: $70–100 billion in investments, “AI-powered smart cities,” and even a Riviera of artificial islands.
On paper, it looks like a utopian reboot. But from a scientific perspective, the plan is riddled with fragile assumptions, shaky projections, and blind spots.
The Scale Problem: Megaprojects vs. Human Realities
The proposal leans heavily on 10 mega-projects, from desalination hubs to luxury resorts and gigafactories. History shows these kinds of large-scale developments rarely go as planned. Consider Egypt’s Toshka Project (a desert reclamation scheme) or Saudi Arabia’s NEOM. Both overpromised, underdelivered, and underestimated the complexity of human resettlement, ecological disruption, and governance.
Gaza is not an empty canvas; it is a densely populated, politically contested territory with fragile infrastructure. Scientific research on urban reconstruction in post-conflict zones emphasizes incremental, community-led rebuilding over top-down megaprojects. Without that, projects risk becoming “islands of progress” that fail to improve daily life.
You can read the whole plan here in this linked pdf.
The Demographic and Ecological Blind Spot
The plan assumes 25% of Gazans will voluntarily relocate, with financial incentives. But population science suggests relocation under duress rarely unfolds predictably. Refugee and migration studies show deep ties to land, culture, and community often outweigh cash incentives. Moreover, displacing hundreds of thousands of people risks ecological ripple effects in host countries, including urban overcrowding, strain on the food system, and water scarcity.
At the same time, the ecological cost of artificial islands, high-speed rail, and massive desalination projects is ignored. Peer-reviewed studies indicate that large-scale desalination increases salinity and heat in marine ecosystems, thereby devastating biodiversity. Artificial islands like Dubai’s Palm Jumeirah have eroded coastlines and destroyed coral reefs. Gaza’s fragile Mediterranean ecosystem may not be able to withstand these shocks.
The Numbers Don’t Add Up
The GREAT Trust promises 11x GDP growth in a decade. Economists call this “hockey-stick forecasting”: wildly optimistic growth curves that rarely align with reality. Post-conflict economies typically experience rapid growth, followed by a plateau due to corruption, brain drain, and fragile institutions. Science-based forecasting models (like agent-based simulations of labor markets) would temper such expectations.
The reliance on tokenization of land assets, essentially blockchain real estate, adds another layer of speculation. Scientific analyses of blockchain projects show high failure rates and volatility, especially when applied to fragile governance systems.
Health and Infrastructure: Unrealistic Benchmarks
The plan promises 13,000 new hospital beds and universal permanent housing by year 10. But public health research consistently shows that health outcomes depend less on sheer bed counts and more on workforce training, access equity, and long-term financing. Gaza currently faces shortages not just of infrastructure, but of trained medical staff. You can build hospitals, but without doctors and nurses, they’re shells.
Similarly, rebuilding utilities, roads, and water systems in four years (as projected) ignores case studies from Iraq, Afghanistan, and even post-Katrina New Orleans, where debris removal and UXO clearance alone took far longer.
Security by Private Contractors: A Scientific Risk Assessment
The proposal relies on a hybrid security model, with private contractors transitioning authority to vetted Gazans. But political science and criminology research point to a consistent risk: private military contractors tend to escalate violence, undermine trust, and operate with weak accountability. In fragile states, security reform is most successful when tied to transparent, community-trusted institutions, rather than being outsourced to for-profit actors.
What Science Suggests Instead
- Community-Led Reconstruction – Evidence from post-conflict Rwanda, Bosnia, and Sierra Leone shows that involving local populations in housing design, governance, and education leads to more durable peace.
- Ecological Restoration First – Rebuilding Gaza’s agriculture, water systems, and coastal ecosystems is scientifically tied to food security and resilience.
- Incremental Infrastructure – Smaller-scale renewable energy, modular housing, and locally owned businesses scale better than megaprojects.
- Health Workforce Development – Training medical staff and building primary-care systems must accompany any hospital expansion.
Final Word
The GREAT Trust proposal markets Gaza as a future “hub for trade, tourism, and AI.” But science warns us against treating societies like startup pitches. Conflict recovery is less about tokenized assets and mega-highways, and more about trust, equity, and ecology. If Gaza is to thrive, it will need grounded, evidence-based rebuilding rooted in human needs, not speculative mega-dreams.
