Gaza’s genocide, the Ben-Gurion canal, and the politics of reconstruction – erasure by design

“Every plan, every scheme, every initiative put forward by Israel has meant in practice, the further dispossession has meant, in practice the further dispossession of the Palestinian people”

The violence in Gaza is not simply episodic slaughter; it is an engineered campaign of erasure — of lives, livelihoods, memory, and geography. The Independent UN Commission of Inquiry concluded in June 2024 that the pattern of killing, denial of life-sustaining services, and the rhetoric of some Israeli officials meet the threshold of genocide. To understand what is being lost, we must follow not only the bombs but also the canals: how water, land, and sea are being weaponised, and how grand infrastructure fantasies — above all the idea of a Ben-Gurion canal — are being deployed to normalise dispossession.

Erasure through water and basic infrastructure

Across Gaza, water systems, sewage plants, and desalination facilities have been repeatedly destroyed or rendered inoperable. Human Rights Watch has documented how Israel’s actions left nearly all residents without safe drinking water, calling it a deliberate tactic with lethal consequences. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) confirmed that children queue for hours for brackish water while sewage floods streets and disease spreads in overcrowded camps. What looks like collateral damage is in fact strategy: without clean water, sanitation, schools, and hospitals, a society cannot reproduce itself — and memory becomes harder to anchor in place.

The Ben-Gurion canal: a canal of dispossession

The Ben-Gurion canal is not an idle technical curiosity. First imagined in the 1960s as an Israeli alternative to the Suez, the project has been revived in recent years as planners and boosters tout “visionary” fixes to regional trade. Proposals suggest linking the Red Sea near Eilat to the Mediterranean, creating a new maritime corridor bypassing the Suez and cutting through the Negev and southern Levant.

On its face, the canal promises jobs, ports, and “revitalisation.” In practice, it exposes how reconstruction is being weaponised. Building a canal on this scale would demand vast land acquisition, demolition, and environmental upheaval. If routed alongside or through Gaza’s littoral — as some variants suggest — it becomes an explicit instrument for territorial re-engineering: carving out maritime access, dispossessing communities, and embedding a securitised corridor under Israeli or foreign control.

Who benefits – and who pays?

The Ben-Gurion project is attractive to investors: an alternate trade route that could siphon traffic from the Suez, reshape regional logistics, and open lucrative contracts. Analysts warn that such a canal would blunt Egyptian leverage over global shipping and give Israel and its allies new strategic advantage. But for Palestinians, it risks permanent exclusion from their coast and resources.

The ecological cost would also be immense: digging a mega-canal through arid landscapes and across coastal aquifers risks salinisation of groundwater, destruction of fragile ecosystems, and irreversible agricultural losses. These are not simply environmental side-effects; they are a form of erasure in themselves — obliterating place-based livelihoods and knowledge.

Reconstruction as cover for securitisation

Reconstruction rhetoric — “we will rebuild” — can be a double-edged sword. Masterplans issued in the name of revitalisation often serve as political cover for land grabs and economic integration on terms set by outside powers. The World Bank’s damage assessments in Gaza acknowledge the need for heritage and infrastructure restoration but also reveal how external donors dictate frameworks without Palestinian sovereignty. A canal project would require permanent security infrastructure — ports, checkpoints, patrols, perhaps even naval bases. Who controls those? That answer determines not only trade but the very political geography of the region. Reconstruction becomes another layer of dispossession.

Cultural erasure and the theft of memory

While planners map canals, UNESCO and local experts count destroyed mosques, cemeteries, libraries, and archaeological sites. UNESCO has verified widespread destruction of Gaza’s cultural heritage, calling the losses “irreparable.” Each strike on a school, mosque, or cemetery is not only physical destruction but also an attack on continuity and memory.

Europe’s double standard and U.S. backing

Those who cheer reconstruction from afar are not neutral. The EU frequently balances rhetoric of concern with continuing economic and military ties. A 2024 report by European NGOs showed multiple EU states authorising arms sales to Israel even amid the Gaza genocide. Meanwhile, the United States remains the main engine of Israel’s capacity, supplying over $158 billion in cumulative military aid since 1948. That combination of European duplicity and U.S. complicity ensures that projects like the Ben-Gurion canal are insulated from accountability.

The politics of permanence and the limits of force

Occupations survive only while they can reproduce legitimacy and viability. The Ben-Gurion canal is not merely infrastructure; it is a political project to re-engineer the region. But history warns that projects rooted in erasure carry the seeds of their own collapse. Militarised “development” breeds resistance and long-term instability.

Conclusion: name the project, expose the design

To call this moment genocide is not rhetorical excess but political clarity. The Ben-Gurion canal is not a neutral engineering plan; it is an instrument of dispossession. Naming and critiquing it is urgent: it ties together water denial, cultural destruction, and securitised “reconstruction.” The world must reject rebuilding schemes that cement erasure and instead insist on Palestinian sovereignty, heritage protection, and accountability. Anything less is complicity in genocide.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.