The continuing crisis in Gaza has once again drawn the world’s attention to the urgent need for humanitarian relief, recovery, and restoration in a land marked by decades of destruction. The ruins that now dominate the landscape are not merely evidence of material loss but also a reminder of the fragile nature of peace in conflict zones. To speak of assistance in Gaza is to speak not only of the immediate response required to sustain lives but also of the long-term vision of reviving communities and fostering resilience. Yet, the effort to restore Gaza must be approached with caution, humility, and lessons drawn from the past, as history has shown that rehabilitation without political resolution is fragile and temporary.
Smoke rises following an Israeli strike, in Gaza City, August 22(REUTERS)
Gaza has faced repeated cycles of war, ceasefire, and attempts at renewal. After each major escalation, international donors pledged billions for recovery, and relief agencies mobilised to bring support. Yet, the cycle repeats itself because redevelopment often outpaces political settlement. Schools rebuilt with international funding have been reduced to rubble again within a few years; hospitals and power plants painstakingly restored have faced fresh bombardment. This reality demonstrates a sobering lesson: Humanitarian support and revival cannot function in isolation from peace. Without durable political solutions, rehabilitation risks becoming a revolving door of temporary relief followed by renewed destruction. The international community must, therefore, learn from the past by not only investing in material renewal but also ensuring that such investments are protected by frameworks of security and diplomacy.
One key lesson is that humanitarian response in Gaza is most effective when depoliticised. In previous crises, support became entangled with political rivalries, both within Gaza and among external actors. Supplies meant for civilians were sometimes delayed, diverted, or restricted due to fears of misuse. This created a dangerous precedent where humanitarian relief was seen as a bargaining tool rather than a universal right. Learning from this, it is essential that future responses are grounded in transparency, neutrality, and accountability. The experiences of past UN missions and international NGOs in Gaza underscore the importance of clear monitoring mechanisms, open supply channels, and community involvement to ensure that assistance reaches those most in need without being weaponised in political struggles.
The UN has historically played a pivotal role in coordinating humanitarian operations in Gaza, primarily through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and various UN humanitarian offices. Despite criticism and constraints, UNRWA has been a lifeline for millions of Palestinians, providing education, healthcare, and essential services. Its role highlights both the potential and the limits of international organisations in conflict zones. On the one hand, the UN’s presence ensures that relief continues to flow even when bilateral political relations collapse. On the other hand, the UN is dependent on member-State funding and political will, which often fluctuate with changing global dynamics. The future of support and recovery in Gaza, therefore, requires a renewed commitment from the UN and its members to strengthen and depoliticise its humanitarian mandate.
The UN can also serve as a mediator between conflicting parties to secure temporary truces that enable the delivery of assistance. Past experiences demonstrate that even fragile ceasefires can create critical windows of opportunity for convoys to move, for hospitals to restock, and for communities to begin early recovery. The UN’s credibility as a relatively neutral actor allows it to facilitate these arrangements, though its effectiveness often depends on the willingness of major powers to back its efforts. To restore Gaza, the UN’s role must go beyond emergency relief and encompass a broader vision of peacebuilding promoting dialogue, fostering confidence-building measures, and ensuring that humanitarian support is not undermined by renewed violence.
Another lesson from the past is that recovery in Gaza cannot be limited to physical infrastructure. Entire neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals have been rebuilt before, only to be destroyed again. The deeper challenge lies in reviving the social fabric and psychological resilience of Gaza’s people. The trauma of repeated wars has left a generation of children growing up amidst loss, instability, and uncertainty. Humanitarian response must, therefore, prioritise not only food and shelter but also education, psychosocial support, and opportunities for young people to imagine a future beyond conflict. The UN has experience in integrating such programs into its frameworks, and these must be scaled up in Gaza to prevent an entire generation from being permanently scarred by conflict.
The political dynamics of the region also offer lessons for the UN’s role in Gaza. In past recovery efforts, pledges of assistance from donor countries have often fallen short of actual disbursement, and bureaucratic hurdles have slowed implementation. The UN, with its global reach and convening power, is uniquely positioned to ensure accountability in such pledges. It can monitor commitments, coordinate donor contributions, and push for sustained financing beyond the immediate crisis. Importantly, the UN can also advocate for development-oriented investments such as renewable energy projects, local agriculture, and digital infrastructure that can reduce Gaza’s long-term dependence on external support and foster self-reliance.
The challenges facing relief delivery and recovery in Gaza are daunting, but they are not insurmountable. Learning from past failures, the international community must commit to a comprehensive approach where humanitarian response, rehabilitation, and peace efforts are interlinked rather than pursued in isolation. The UN must be empowered to play a central role in this framework, acting not only as a provider of relief but also as a guarantor of accountability and a mediator of fragile truces. At the same time, local voices must be included in shaping recovery plans, ensuring that renewal is not imposed from the outside but reflects the aspirations and needs of Gaza’s people.
The urgency of the moment cannot be overstated. Gaza’s humanitarian crisis is not a distant tragedy but a test of global conscience. Support and recovery represent not only the material restoration of a devastated land but also the moral responsibility of the international community to uphold the dignity and humanity of its people. The lessons of the past show that temporary fixes are not enough, and the role of the UN is indispensable in transforming relief into a pathway toward peace.
In the end, restoring Gaza must not be about returning to what was, but about envisioning what could be. It must go beyond repairing broken buildings to restoring broken lives and broken trust. If humanitarian response and recovery are tied to a genuine pursuit of peace, and if the UN is given the mandate and support to play its rightful role, then perhaps Gaza can emerge from the shadows of endless conflict into the possibility of a more hopeful future. For the victims, immediate assistance is survival today, but rehabilitation is the hope for tomorrow, and peace is the only guarantee that tomorrow will not be shattered again
This article is authored by Gunwant Singh, scholar, international relations and security studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.