Fact check: What are the potential obstacles to building a resort in Gaza?

1. A contested coastline: political plans collide with local reality

Israeli ministers publicly promoting development on Gaza’s beachfront frame the area as a redevelopment opportunity, with statements in September 2025 proposing police neighborhoods and commercial projects, signaling an intention to repurpose the coastline for Israeli-led projects. These proposals are grounded in political objectives rather than neutral urban planning, and they directly clash with the presence and displacement of Palestinians who have historically lived and worked on the coast. The political drivers behind the proposals increase the likelihood of legal challenges and international condemnation, making any resort development contingent on a major political shift rather than conventional site selection criteria ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Destruction and reconstruction: the infrastructure problem up close

Observers contrast Gaza’s ruined infrastructure with successful seafront projects elsewhere—El Gouna in Egypt and Israel’s SEA ONE—to underline how much foundational work a resort would require. Those projects succeeded in relatively stable, investment-friendly environments with functioning utilities and regulatory frameworks. Gaza, by contrast, suffered extensive physical damage and loss of basic services, so constructing a viable resort would demand large-scale rebuilding of water, power, sewage, transport, and safety systems before hospitality investment can even begin to operate. The scale and cost of reconstruction are therefore major practical obstacles beyond mere real-estate planning ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Displacement and legality: human-rights and international law barriers

Multiple analyses highlight proposals to remove Palestinian residents or repurpose land now or formerly inhabited, which raises evident legal and ethical questions under international humanitarian and human-rights law. Forced displacement and expropriation for commercial development generate likely objections from rights groups, foreign governments, and multilateral bodies, threatening sanctions, litigation, and reputational damage for developers and platforms involved. The prospect of transforming Gaza into a “real estate jackpot” without remedy for displaced people increases the risk that any project would be blocked, boycotted, or rendered commercially nonviable by legal and policy actions ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Investor climate and market risk: why capital may not flow

Economic analyses from late 2025 caution that political uncertainty and a deteriorating regional market will deter private capital. High-risk political signals—public calls by ministers to annex or redevelop occupied territory—combined with lingering conflict and uncertain property rights make financing and insurance for hospitality projects extremely costly or unobtainable. Developers evaluating comparable seaside resorts in stable markets find investor appetite tied to predictable rule of law and tourist safety. Gaza’s present environment lacks those staples, meaning conventional tourism investment models would require extraordinary risk premiums or state backing to proceed ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Platform and market pressures: reputational and operational pushback

Analysts note the role of online travel platforms and booking intermediaries in either enabling or resisting tourism that emerges from contested or occupied areas. The suggestion that mainstream platforms might participate in tourism that facilitates displacement raises concerns about complicity and potential policy shifts by companies responding to public pressure. If major platforms restrict listings, or if governments, NGOs, and consumer advocates mount boycotts, the operational viability of any Gaza resort would be severely limited. Corporate reputational risk therefore functions as a non-negligible obstacle that sits parallel to legal and financial concerns ^[5].

6. Security realities and the human cost: safety as a non-negotiable factor

Active or latent conflict imposes immediate limits on resort feasibility: prospective tourists require durable safety assurances, and operators must factor in evacuation routes, insurance contingencies, and persistent security costs. Political statements aiming to establish permanent security presences—such as police neighborhoods—underscore the contested character of any coastal redevelopment and the likelihood of securitization rather than peaceful tourism. Security measures themselves could deter visitors and complicate community relations, meaning that the presence of security forces can be both a prerequisite for and a deterrent to tourism demand ^[1].

7. International reaction and the pathway forward: politics will decide feasibility

Global criticism documented in September 2025 and later signals that international political responses will shape project feasibility. Even if reconstruction and financing hurdles were addressed, lack of broad diplomatic support and accusations of unlawful dispossession would likely block major international firms and insurers from participation. Conversely, any trajectory toward a legitimate, rights-respecting redevelopment would require political agreement on sovereignty, restitution, and durable security guarantees. The assessments indicate that without a comprehensive political settlement and rights-based approach, resort-building ambitions remain aspirational and politically fraught ^[2].

8. Bottom line: multiple, mutually reinforcing barriers mean a resort is not a simple build

Combining the sources yields a consistent conclusion: legal, political, security, infrastructural, financial, and reputational barriers are mutually reinforcing and collectively make constructing a commercial resort in Gaza highly unlikely under current conditions. Examples of successful regional resorts illustrate what would be required—stability, utilities, investor confidence, and community consent—but the gap between that template and Gaza’s present reality remains large. Any credible pathway would demand coordinated political agreements, rights-based restitution, major reconstruction funding, and sustained security for civilians and visitors alike ^{[3] [4] [6] [2]}.