Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the potential economic benefits of a Biden-brokered Gaza peace agreement?
Executive Summary
A Biden-brokered Gaza peace agreement is described by some actors as having the potential to unlock substantial economic reconstruction and development, particularly through real estate and special economic zones, but assessments diverge sharply on feasibility, political acceptability, and who would capture the gains. Reporting and commentary from September–December 2025 indicate proponents emphasize investment-led recovery and financing of wartime costs, while critics warn of displacement, occupation dynamics, and the necessity of multi-party buy-in for any economic benefits to materialize [1] [2].
1. A Vision of a Real-Estate ‘Bonanza’ — Who’s Pushing This Idea and Why?
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has publicly framed Gaza as a potential real estate windfall that could help finance Israel’s war expenses and rehabilitate northern Israeli towns, asserting discussions with U.S. officials and implying private-sector-led redevelopment as central to any peace deal [1]. This claim ties economic recovery directly to territorial and settlement plans and presents redevelopment as a revenue source rather than solely humanitarian relief. Smotrich’s framing signals an agenda to couple security outcomes with market-driven reconstruction, but it also raises immediate questions about Palestinian displacement, sovereignty, and equitable distribution of gains.
2. The Trump Plan’s Economic Blueprint — What Elements Resemble a Biden Deal?
Donald Trump’s published 20-point Gaza plan includes disarmament, humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a special economic zone, and proposes international stabilization forces and redevelopment mechanisms that could theoretically produce jobs and infrastructure investment [2]. Those policy building blocks—if replicated in a Biden-brokered agreement—suggest pathways to stimulate construction, trade, and private-sector engagement. However, the Trump text is an outline reliant on cooperation among Israel, Palestinian actors, and regional partners; the translation from plan elements to tangible economic gains depends on implementation, security guarantees, and legal frameworks governing land, ownership, and investment.
3. Palestinian and Regional Resistance — Why Economic Promises May Not Persuade
Across reporting, Palestinian stakeholders and parts of the international community are deeply skeptical of redevelopment schemes tied to territorial reconfiguration or settlement expansion, framing such proposals as economic facades for de facto annexation or forced displacement [3]. This opposition underscores that economic incentives alone do not resolve core political grievances over sovereignty, borders, and the right of return. Any economic benefits promised by a U.S.-brokered deal would be undermined if Palestinian political leaders, civil society, and regional players view the plan as compromising fundamental rights.
4. Conditionality and Leverage — The United States’ Role in Making Benefits Real
Analysts note the United States—whether under Biden or through diplomatic continuity—would need to leverage aid, guarantees, and multilateral financing to turn reconstruction pledges into on-the-ground projects, making U.S.-Gulf coordination and international backing decisive for mobilizing capital [4] [5]. Gulf states’ willingness to invest, and Washington’s ability to align security and economic incentives, determine investor confidence. Historical experience shows that donor coordination, durable ceasefires, and political settlements are prerequisites for sustained private investment; absent these, short-term construction booms may be unsustainable.
5. Winners and Losers — Who Stands to Gain Economically and Politically?
If redevelopment proceeds as envisioned by proponents, potential winners include construction firms, real-estate developers, Israeli towns seeking rehabilitation, and foreign investors positioned to enter special economic zones [1]. Conversely, displaced Palestinians, local small businesses, and groups excluded from ownership structures risk losing out, fueling grievances. Economic gains therefore risk reinforcing preexisting power asymmetries unless the agreement embeds transparent land restitution, inclusive contracting, and mechanisms ensuring Palestinian ownership and participation in rebuilding efforts.
6. Security-Economy Feedback Loops — Why Stability Matters for Investment
All sourced analyses emphasize that lasting economic benefit is contingent on security and governance: disarmament commitments, policing arrangements, and credible international stabilization forces are prerequisites for investor risk calculations [2]. Without durable security guarantees, reconstruction funds could be vulnerable to renewed conflict, deterring long-term capital. Therefore, economic promises in any Biden-mediated deal hinge on enforceable, monitored security provisions that reassure both private and public financiers.
7. Bottom Line: Potential Gains but No Automatic Windfall
A Biden-brokered Gaza agreement could unlock significant reconstruction spending, job creation, and infrastructural upgrades if it secures Palestinian consent, regional investment, and robust international guarantees; however, such outcomes are not automatic and face legal, political, and ethical constraints, especially concerning displacement and sovereignty [6] [3] [4]. Evaluations from late 2025 show competing blueprints and political agendas—real estate-led redevelopment versus rights-based recovery—and the ultimate economic impact will be determined by deal design, implementers, and whether benefits are distributed equitably.