Media coverage
PalThink for Strategic Studies · 2026-08-24
Drawing on Qatar's response to the 2017 blockade, the article argues that a severe shock can be turned into a strategic decision to build local productive capacity — in food, energy and industry — rather than merely restoring what existed. For Gaza, it concludes that reconstruction is only sustainable if designed as productive recovery: knowing what must never stop, what can be produced efficiently at home, what to import and from where, and how to secure alternative supply lines.
Drawing on Qatar's response to the 2017 blockade, the article argues that a severe shock can be turned into a strategic decision to build local productive capacity — in food, energy and industry — rather than merely restoring what existed. For Gaza, it concludes that reconstruction is only sustaina…
Crises, in most cases, do not create development. They destroy assets, disrupt markets, reduce household incomes, and weaken the institutions needed for recovery. Yet a severe shock may reveal vulnerabilities that had been lived with for years, and push governments and societies to make decisions that normal circumstances had allowed them to postpone.
From here, the policy question is not whether destruction can be described as an opportunity; war and destruction cannot be considered an opportunity in and of themselves. The real question is: how can one rise again and not surrender to the reality produced by crises and disasters?
History shows that some societies, after devastating crises and wars, were able to rebuild stronger and more productive economies. But this did not happen because of the destruction itself; rather, it was the result of political and institutional choices, good governance, conscious leadership, and decisions taken during the recovery phase. This issue acquires exceptional importance in the case of the Gaza Strip, and Palestine generally. Before the current war, Gaza’s economy was already governed by closure, repeated destruction, restricted access to land and sea, high dependence on external supplies, and a narrow productive base. Therefore, rebuilding what had existed, without addressing these imbalances, will reproduce the same fragility but at a much higher cost. Accordingly, any serious recovery policy should meet urgent humanitarian needs while at the same time rebuilding the economy’s capacity to produce, and reducing the number of constraints at which economic life and attempts at recovery and resurgence can stall.
## Reconstruction is not synonymous with economic transformation
The experiences of Germany and Japan are often invoked as examples of rising from widespread destruction. But the value of these two experiences does not lie in the scale of the destruction that preceded them, but in how the recovery process was organized.
In West Germany, reconstruction was linked to the Marshall Plan and to development finance institutions, among them the German Reconstruction Bank (KfW), which used funds associated with the European Recovery Program to finance investment, and whose role later evolved to provide long-term loans to sectors such as energy, housing, industry, and small and medium-sized enterprises.
The outcome was not merely the rebuilding of buildings and facilities. Recovery coincided with the reorganization of finance and investment, the expansion of industrial capacity, the restoration of trade, and the development of economic institutions. Likewise, Japan’s recovery was not simply the replacement of destroyed assets; it was tied to institutional reforms, industrial development, technology absorption, investment, and expansion into external markets. The most important lesson here is that physical reconstruction is not the same as economic transformation. A country may rebuild roads, housing, water networks, and energy systems, yet remain economically weak if firms, skilled labor, financial intermediation, supply chains, trade relations, and the capacity for innovation are not restored at the same time.
This is the lesson that should govern thinking about the reconstruction of Gaza: it is not enough for assets to return to what they were; what is required is for the economic system to become more capable of enduring when exposed to the next shock.
## Qatar: a supply shock that changed economic priorities
The experience of the State of Qatar after the blockade that began in June 2017 offers a useful regional case for this discussion. It is certainly not a model that can be replicated in Gaza, given the enormous differences in sovereignty, resources, and institutional capacity. But it illustrates how a sudden supply shock can drive a redesign of the relationship among trade, domestic production, inventories, logistics, and finance. The blockade led to the closure of Qatar’s only land border and disrupted trade routes that had been stable. Merchandise imports fell by about 40% year-on-year in June 2017, after which Qatar moved quickly to reroute trade through Iranian airspace and Omani ports, diversify suppliers, and make use of Hamad Port, while importing goods from or through Iran, Oman, Turkey, China, and others. In this way, it was able to absorb the trade shock within a relatively short period. At the same time, the state used its financial resources to protect the banking system from liquidity pressures and the decline in non-resident deposits, an option that was available only because of the state’s great financial and sovereign strength. More importantly, however, the response did not stop at rerouting imports. The crisis accelerated investment in certain local productive activities. According to Qatar’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the self-sufficiency rate in dairy products rose from 27% to 106%, and in fresh poultry from 49% to 123% over two years. But these figures should not be read as evidence that the solution is to produce everything locally. On the contrary, the importance of the Qatari experience lies in the fact that it did not move toward economic isolation.
## Selective self-reliance, not economic isolation
Qatar’s food security strategy organized its resilience around an interconnected set of tools: diversification of trade and logistics, selective domestic production, strategic stockpiles, and market efficiency. At the trade level, the strategy aimed to diversify trading partners for sensitive goods, with around three to five suppliers for each strategic commodity, and contingency plans to reroute supplies when disruptions occur. At the production level, it did not assume that all goods must be produced locally; rather, it targeted higher levels for goods that can reasonably be produced domestically, such as milk and poultry, while maintaining reliance on imports for goods whose local production would not be competitive or sustainable in resource terms.
## What can Qatar’s experience offer Gaza, and what can it not offer?
The comparison with Gaza must remain disciplined given the enormous differences between them.
Qatar entered the 2017 crisis with substantial financial resources, functioning state institutions, sovereignty over its borders, ports, and airspace, and the capacity to redirect trade and mobilize capital. Gaza, by contrast, faces a fundamentally different reality: limited land and water, no control over borders, currencies, or trade routes, severe restrictions on the movement of people and productive inputs, in addition to the widespread destruction of the private sector, markets, and productive assets. The blockade of Qatar disrupted supply routes in a wealthy economy capable of mobilizing its resources. In Gaza, however, war and closure have destroyed much of a productive base that was already constrained. Recent international estimates confirm the scale of the difference. In the Interim Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment issued in February 2025, physical damage was estimated at approximately $29.9 billion, and recovery and reconstruction needs at approximately $53.2 billion. But the more recent joint assessment by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the European Union, issued in April 2026 and covering damage through October 2025, estimated physical damage in Gaza at approximately $35.2 billion, economic losses at approximately $22.7 billion, and recovery and reconstruction needs at approximately $71.4 billion over the coming decade. These estimates, despite differing reference periods, agree that Gaza’s recovery cannot be managed as a conventional construction program. Therefore, the lesson from Qatar should not be the replication of specific projects or fixed percentages of domestic production. The lesson is a way of thinking:
But Gaza requires an additional condition that cannot be separated from economics: freedom of movement for people, goods, and capital. The movement of people and goods, access to inputs and markets, the availability of energy and water, the ability to transfer funds, and the stability of the institutional framework are not external to the economy; they are preconditions for the economy itself to function.
## From Reconstruction to Productive Recovery
Gaza’s reconstruction will necessarily begin with housing, water, health, education, shelter, and other urgent needs. But it must not stop there. Rebuilding roads, networks, and buildings without restoring the productive economy will leave households dependent on aid, municipalities without a sustainable revenue base, youth without job opportunities, and local firms outside the recovery cycle. The central policy question is:
How can every dollar spent on reconstruction restore, alongside the physical asset, part of the productive capacity the economy has lost?
This means that rebuilding a school, for example, should be linked to local supply chains whenever possible; rehabilitating a water network should create demand for local maintenance and engineering firms; rebuilding the energy sector should increase the capacity of institutions and facilities to operate continuously; and housing reconstruction should not turn into nothing more than a comprehensive importation of materials and services.
The assessment issued by the United Nations Development Programme in February 2026 indicates that the majority of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises in Gaza continue to face severe constraints due to the collapse of energy, shortages of inputs and liquidity, and disruption in transport and markets. At the same time, the assessment identifies areas that could serve as entry points for recovery, including food industries, poultry and livestock, aquaculture, vegetable production and cold storage, solar energy and hybrid systems, small-scale desalination, rubble recycling, and light industries.
This requires correcting two important errors: –
The first is the complete separation between relief and economic recovery, as if productive activity could wait until reconstruction is complete.
The second is an early shift to normal commercial lending, burdening enterprises with debt at a time when they have neither stable cash flows, nor collateral, nor secure access to markets. Productive recovery should begin early, but its instruments must reflect the actual risks of the phase.
## A Practical Agenda for Productive Reconstruction
1. Establishing a minimum strategic productive base
Priority should be given to goods and services whose interruption directly threatens food, water, energy, shelter, or employment opportunities. Poultry and eggs, greenhouse vegetables, food processing, cold storage, aquaculture, maintenance services, and some construction inputs can constitute practical starting points. Every investment should be subjected to four tests: strategic importance; technical and economic feasibility; efficiency in the use of land, water, and energy; and the capacity to support a local market capable of continuing.
2. Building distributed systems instead of relying entirely on centralized facilities
Solar and hybrid energy systems, local storage, neighborhood-level water treatment, modular desalination units, and smaller production units can restore services more quickly and reduce the impact of any future disruption. Distributed systems do not represent a permanent substitute for major networks, but they can provide a minimum level of operation while centralized infrastructure is being rebuilt. This is especially important in an environment where a single point of failure can disable an entire service.
3. Using reconstruction demand to restore local firms
The reconstruction process will create a massive market for transport, engineering, maintenance, food, construction materials, and digital and professional services. Procurement should be designed so that capable Palestinian firms can compete and grow, rather than remain small subcontractors on the margins of projects managed by external actors. This can be achieved through:
• supplier development programs;
• breaking large contracts into packages that allow local firms to compete;
• clear and enforceable quality standards;
• and training programs directly linked to contracts.
4. Sequencing financing instruments according to the level of risk
In the early phase, grants, asset compensation, wage support, and working capital finance will be more realistic than conventional commercial credit. As markets and institutions improve, a gradual transition can be made to: credit guarantees; first-loss capital; concessional loans; blended finance; and investments by Palestinians in the diaspora.
The transition from relief to investment should not be a fixed chronological decision, but rather one linked to measurable indicators, such as improved electricity availability, liquidity, access to inputs, demand stability, and the capacity of financial institutions to operate.
5. Establishing a unified framework for economic recovery
Productive recovery requires more than a list of projects prepared by separate institutions. Palestinian public bodies, municipalities, business associations, banks, universities, civil society, and international partners need a common framework that defines: priority sectors; responsible institutions; financing instruments; procurement mechanisms; and transparency and accountability mechanisms.
6. Protecting local knowledge and human capital
Gaza’s recovery will not depend on physical assets alone. It will also depend on engineers, technicians, farmers, entrepreneurs, researchers, public employees, teachers, and skilled workers. Therefore, short-cycle technical training programs, support for universities and vocational training institutions, recognition of skills acquired during the emergency response, and linking sectors to Palestinian expertise abroad should be part of the sectoral investments themselves. Imported technology does not become sustainable productive capacity unless local residents are able to operate it, maintain it, develop it, and adapt it to their needs.
The opportunity does not lie in war, destruction, or the continuation of closure, but in the choices made when recovery becomes possible. The experience of West Germany shows that reconstruction can become the foundation for economic transformation when long-term financing, institutions, productive capacity, and access to markets move in the same direction. Qatar’s experience shows that a sudden supply shock can drive the correction of dangerous forms of dependence, without withdrawing from trade or seeking complete self-sufficiency.
But Gaza differs fundamentally from both cases.
The scale of the current destruction, the weakness of the productive base, restrictions on movement and access, and the disruption of markets and institutions make Gaza’s reconstruction a project that goes far beyond merely replacing destroyed assets. The latest Joint Assessment estimated recovery and reconstruction needs at approximately $71.4 billion, with physical damage amounting to $35.2 billion and economic losses amounting to $22.7 billion. Therefore, rebuilding the economy that existed before the war would, at best, be a return to a previous point of fragility. The more ambitious goal, and at the same time the more realistic one, is to build an economy more capable of functioning under pressure: a stronger local business sector, distributed energy and water systems, a strategic base for food production, better storage and logistics capacities, financing instruments commensurate with risks, institutions capable of managing investment transparently, and a workforce with the skills necessary for operation and adaptation. Here lies the most important lesson from Qatar’s experience: resilience does not mean producing everything yourself, but rather knowing what must not be allowed to stop, what you can produce efficiently, what you should import, from where, and how to ensure continuity of supply if the first route is disrupted.
For Gaza, turning reconstruction into productive recovery is not an economic luxury. It is one of the conditions for reconstruction itself to be sustainable.