A leaked 38-page prospectus branded the Gaza Riviera proposes a U.S.-led, 10-year trusteeship to remake wartime Gaza into a tourism and tech hub funded largely by private capital, according to documents first reported on August 31, 2025 [1]. The plan outlines $100 billion in private investment, $6 billion for temporary housing, $5,000 payments per Palestinian who “voluntarily” relocates, and a goal of generating $4.5 billion in annual revenue within a decade [1]. Rights groups and legal experts swiftly condemned the scheme as a vehicle for mass displacement marketed as redevelopment [3].

Key Takeaways

– shows a 38-page Gaza Riviera prospectus proposing a 10-year U.S. trusteeship, $100bn private investment and $6bn for temporary housing logistics.
– reveals $5,000 cash payments per relocatee and BCG-modeled scenarios targeting up to 500,000 departures under U.S.-led security and contracting.
– demonstrates investor pitches forecasting $4.5bn annual revenue within ten years and tokenized land swaps designed to accelerate returns and monetization.
– indicates UN data show over 90% of homes damaged in Gaza and 2.1 million residents affected, raising severe feasibility and rights concerns.
– suggests rival Arab plan budgets $53bn while keeping residents, contrasting starkly with $23,000-per-person savings touted for relocations and investor interests.

What the leaked ‘Gaza Riviera’ prospectus proposes

The document, dubbed the GREAT Trust, sketches a decade-long trusteeship run by the United States to steer Gaza’s reconstruction and rebranding as a “Riviera,” with a heavy emphasis on private capital, special zones and tourism-led growth [1]. Its budget pillars include $100 billion in private investment, $6 billion to provide temporary housing, and a relocation incentive of $5,000 per person, with revenues forecast to reach $4.5 billion per year by year 10 of operations [1].

A parallel account describes Boston Consulting Group modeling of redevelopment and relocation scenarios, a possible U.S.-led security umbrella reliant on private contractors, and an ambition to assemble “smart cities” along a central corridor, even as legal concern mounts over displacement risks and trusteeship authority [2]. The draft’s marketing flourishes include AI-powered megaprojects and a flagship highway reportedly to be named after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, details that fueled criticism it is an economic veneer for demographic engineering without Palestinian consent [3].

Inside the Gaza Riviera financing math

At headline level, the pitch marries a $100 billion private capex target with a $4.5 billion annual revenue run-rate a decade out, implying a 4.5% top-line yield on gross investment before operating costs, financing, security and political risk premia are accounted for [1]. The plan also earmarks $6 billion for temporary housing and proposes $5,000 relocation payments per person, costs and incentives that would directly shape cash outflows in early program years [1].

CNBC reported an estimated $23,000 in “savings” per person who relocates, a controversial figure used to argue budget efficiencies compared with rebuilding in place [5]. Applied to the Financial Times’ upper-bound scenario of 500,000 departures, the same math would imply $11.5 billion in aggregate savings, a scale large enough to materially influence investor decks despite the legal sensitivity around inducements to leave [2]. Separately, the prospectus references tokenized land swaps as a monetization tool, signaling an intent to financialize property rights in service of liquidity and returns [5].

Proponents position the trusteeship as a mechanism to reduce sovereign risk and crowd in private capital, while critics question whether forecast revenues are credible in a territory where physical and legal frameworks are unsettled and political resistance is intense [1].

Relocation mechanics, incentives and scale

The plan’s most incendiary element is its relocation architecture: $5,000 per person in “voluntary” payments, paired with U.S.-managed security and logistics, with scenarios modeled that could see up to 500,000 Palestinians depart Gaza [1][2]. The language of voluntariness is hotly contested in a context of wartime devastation, and the sheer scale mooted—nearly one-quarter of Gaza’s prewar population—has amplified concerns that inducements would operate under coercive conditions [2][3].

Opponents argue the mix of economic incentives, foreign trusteeship and contractor-led security elevates risks of forced displacement in violation of international law, especially absent clear, democratically expressed Palestinian consent and safeguards guaranteeing return and property rights [3]. Even within the document’s own framing, large-scale population movement is treated as a cost-line and efficiency lever, a technocratic lens that has drawn sharp rebukes from legal scholars and human rights advocates [3].

Legal and geopolitical risks to the Gaza Riviera

The Guardian reported rights groups calling the prospect “genocide packaged as real estate,” labeling the vision “insane” and warning that engineering demographic change under duress may expose officials and corporate participants to potential criminal liability [3]. BBC coverage highlighted a chorus of governments and international organizations warning that mass relocation could violate international law and worsen humanitarian suffering, a risk heightened by the absence of explicit Palestinian backing for the trusteeship concept [4].

Investors and contractors are not insulated from blowback. Analysts told CNBC that firms named in connection with the plan could face reputational and legal exposure if they benefit from forced displacement or postwar land monetization schemes, an assessment echoed by Financial Times reporting on the plan’s legal vulnerabilities and the lack of support from Arab states [5][2]. For would-be financiers, these headline risks are as material as construction costs or revenue assumptions in any discounted-cash-flow model [2].

Humanitarian baseline and feasibility constraints

UN-linked data cited in BBC coverage show over 90% of homes have been damaged or destroyed in Gaza, with approximately 2.1 million residents affected—conditions that necessitate massive near-term shelter, water and power solutions before any luxury tourism vision can be remotely credible [4]. Against that baseline, a $6 billion temporary housing line item may be outstripped by the scale of need, even before factoring the controversy around conditional relocation payments and security controls [1].

What investors and contractors were told

The investor-facing materials tout “smart cities,” AI-enabled infrastructure and tokenized land to accelerate monetization, building a return narrative around property redevelopment and digital asset mechanisms rather than traditional sovereign-backed reconstruction grants [2][5]. The Guardian’s review underscores how the marketing rhetoric—down to naming a central artery after Mohammed bin Salman—sits uncomfortably alongside options for Palestinians to move, a juxtaposition that has intensified criticism that the business case depends on large-scale depopulation [3].

Regional alternative and diplomatic split

A competing Arab-led reconstruction blueprint totals $53 billion and explicitly keeps Gaza’s 2.1 million residents in place, a fundamental design difference that has made it more palatable regionally but was reportedly rejected by the United States and Israel in favor of the trusteeship concept [4]. BBC reporting frames the split as not just technical but moral and legal, with the Arab plan aiming at in-situ rebuilding rather than incentivized exits, and with warnings that trusteeship-plus-relocation could deepen humanitarian suffering [4].

What to watch next

The Washington Post’s August 31 disclosure triggered rapid follow-ups across major outlets, surfacing key line items and governance details—from trusteeship design to relocation incentives—that will likely draw legislative and judicial scrutiny if advanced [1]. Financial Times reporting signals thin regional support and mounting legal questions that could chill private participation, a potent obstacle for a plan premised on $100 billion in investment [2]. With rights groups promising to challenge any displacement mechanisms as unlawful, the political and reputational risks may rise faster than the projected revenues [3][5].

Sources:
[1] The Washington Post – Gaza postwar plan envisions ‘voluntary’ relocation of entire population: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/31/trump-gaza-plan-riviera-relocation/
[2] Financial Times – Gaza postwar plan would offer $5,000 to Palestinians who leave, BCG modelled scenarios: https://www.ft.com/content/2bffa41e-1d18-46c6-a7b4-ccd1f77a2f39
[3] The Guardian – Leaked ‘Gaza Riviera’ plan dismissed as ‘insane’ attempt to cover ethnic cleansing: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/leaked-gaza-riviera-plan-dismissed-as-insane-attempt-to-cover-ethnic-cleansing
[4] BBC News – US and Israel reject Arab alternative to Trump’s Gaza reconstruction plan: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vd4pnxx3o
[5] CNBC – Gaza Riviera: Trump administration weighs post-war redevelopment plan: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/01/gaza-riviera-trump-administration-weighs-post-war-redevelopment-plan.html

Image generated by DALL-E 3