Israel’s Shift Toward Linking Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria’s Reconstruction to Security and Political Plans

As Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria prepare for reconstruction programs following the devastation caused by Israeli occupation during the war, Israeli circles have claimed that regional plans led by Israel, the United States, and the countries of the normalization agreements are focused on providing political and economic solutions for what they call the “New Middle East.” These plans involve dismantling resistance forces and armed groups in exchange for massive investments and a government that enjoys international legitimacy.

General Amit Yagor, former Deputy Head of the Palestinian Arena at the Israeli military’s Planning Directorate and a senior officer in the Israeli Navy Intelligence Division, claimed that “the time has come to think outside the box” by conditioning the reconstruction of Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria on the disarmament of resistance groups there. This, he suggested, could be done through a regional “Marshall Plan,” led by Israel, the United States, and the Abraham Accords countries, positioning it as the key to a new regional order post-ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon.

In an article published by the Israeli newspaper Maariv and translated by Arabi21, Yagor noted that “the central interest of all parties involved is the reconstruction of the civilian side and governance institutions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, as part of their desire to gain popular legitimacy to continue ruling as authorities in their respective regions, as long as the idea is based on mutual interests. Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria are interested in reconstruction, while Israel is interested in disarming them, and this could be implemented through a Marshall Plan similar to the one adopted after World War II.”

He explained that “the plan, launched by the U.S. under Secretary of State George Marshall, took four years to implement, with investments totaling $173 billion in today’s prices. It made a significant contribution to Europe’s rapid economic growth in the following decades, strengthening NATO, preserving American leadership in Europe, and paving the way for the creation of the European Union.”

Yagor highlighted that “linking the reconstruction of Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria to normalization agreements is no longer isolated. We are now facing an ongoing coordination process, especially since the economic corridor for oil, gas, and trade from the East and India passes through Saudi Arabia and Jordan, reaching Israel, making it the central intersection for exporting goods to Europe. It may be possible to guarantee economic gains for Lebanon if it recovers.”

He also claimed that “Lebanon is closer than ever to making a decision to disarm Hezbollah, which, for the first time, does not hold a blocking minority in the government, and its principles no longer include ‘resistance.’ Most Lebanese, including Christians and Druze, support disarming Hezbollah. The group has become weaker, lacking significant financial reserves, and Israeli sanctions against the entry of Iranian funds into Lebanon will make reconstruction an opportunity for the Lebanese government to make decisions aligning with Israeli interests. I would not exaggerate if I said, as I have written repeatedly, that normalization with Lebanon is possible in a few years from now.”

Yagor further elaborated on Syria, stating, “Syria needs reconstruction as quickly as possible to rebuild itself. This is an excellent opportunity to impose a model of multi-sectarian governance in Syria, similar to the Lebanese model, which would strip control from jihadists and serve as a tool to reach an agreement for a wide Israeli security zone, preventing Turkey from entering and taking over its protection, as this would conflict with Israeli interests. While Saudi Arabia is currently considering starting Syria’s reconstruction, it is assumed that the country will sign a normalization agreement with Israel, and the issue of reconstruction and Saudi participation may be discussed as part of normalization talks.”

Turning to Gaza, Yagor noted, “There is no dispute that its reconstruction, given its current state, is an urgent necessity. There is no disagreement that Hamas cannot achieve this alone without funding from normalization countries, with the approval of Israel and the United States. For this reason, reconstruction becomes a significant lever to exclude Hamas from power, disarm it, and establish an alternative. If any reconstruction takes place while Hamas continues to control the sector, even if it is not the declared governing body but is still operating on the ground, it would legitimize them on a larger scale.”

He emphasized that “reconstruction in these political entities represents the supreme interest of most of the parties involved in the region. Israel must approach this from a transnational strategic perspective, especially since there is no capacity to find alternatives to Hamas’s rule in Gaza. This makes the Marshall Plan an opportunity for Israel to create a new equation, restricting the process to Israel, the United States, and the normalization countries, making them the only parties responsible for reconstruction in the entire region, without allowing any other party, such as Turkey, to intervene independently.”

Yagor called for “reconstruction from a comprehensive regional perspective, not on each front individually, in exchange for disarmament. Egypt and Jordan are invited to participate and benefit economically, especially in Gaza, given Hamas’s relatively strong position. There is, however, a preceding phase to this, which is to significantly increase pressure on Hamas by withdrawing humanitarian aid distribution from it, restructuring its contents and details, and perhaps even starting to implement a voluntary migration plan.”