After two years of devastation and unimaginable loss, the ceasefire in Gaza and the promise of humanitarian aid resuming under UN control is welcome and long overdue.

The Trump Peace Plan has deep flaws. It has failed to include consultation with Palestinians and to anchor reconstruction in Palestinian leadership and right to self-determination.

It also relies on an ill-defined Trump Economic Development Plan that positions international corporate and business actors at the heart of Gaza’s recovery. The burning question is: will the development plan lead to another tragic case of “shock therapy” – a privatised and unregulated free-for-all that fills corporate coffers at the expense of Gazans’ rights, and their own economy and jobs? Or will inward investment be directed and controlled to ensure that it delivers Gazan-led reconstruction and economic reactivation, and in accordance with international business and human rights standards?

Worryingly, the Economic Development Plan says nothing about corporate accountability regarding those companies that have been complicit in and have made big money from the occupation and genocide by Israel. We have tracked the alleged complicity of many of these same companies that will seek a role in Gaza’s reconstruction - from construction to private security, surveillance firms, and Big Tech companies, whose data was passed to the IDF to aid the targeting and censorship and of Palestinians.

This year’s UN database of business involvement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory listed 158 enterprises supporting the occupation in construction, real estate, mining and quarrying especially. The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory identified 48 corporate entities from the arms, technology, oil and gas, and construction sectors that have “profited from Israel’s economy of illegal occupation... and genocide”.

The new Peace Plan seems ready to offer these same firms impunity and opportunity. Gazans should be the ones to decide if they want these companies to be part of reconstruction and economic reactivation.

A clear red flag in the plan is the creation of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), designed to attract foreign investment through tax-free and tariff-free incentives. The eternal promise of SEZs is jobs and infrastructure. More likely is an enclave economy with low-paid jobs, divorced from national workers’ protections, no linkage to the Gazan economy, and the denial of vital tax revenues to Palestinians that are essential for rebuilding its public institutions and essential services.

As calls for accountability of complicit state and non-state actors grow, heightened human rights due diligence must be the foundation for any economic activity in Gaza, especially by foreign entities. The risk of business contributing to harm against a population struggling to recover remains critically high. Any effective Economic Development Plan must mandate all companies to identify and minimise the human rights risks they might create for Gazans, or face civil liability.

Gazans must have access to decent work, a living wage and safe conditions. These fundamental rights will be impossible to realise without robust regulation and the vetting of companies allowed to enter Gaza. Tellingly, many companies in construction, manufacturing and energy that may seek opportunities also tolerate forced labour, and exploit migrant workers elsewhere in their global supply chains. Genuine reconstruction must ensure that work in Gaza becomes a vehicle for dignity, not exploitation.

Finally, economic reconstruction must be built on genuine consultation with workers, communities and civil society. Without effective participation, reconstruction will fail in human terms. The people of Gaza are capable of leading their own recovery. Their exclusion from planning or oversight will only perpetuate the cycle of dispossession.

Investors will be tempted to view Gaza’s reconstruction as just another lucrative opportunity, derisked by public funds. But they would do well to recall the lessons of disaster capitalism. The ethical and legal risks are immense, from complicity in further human rights abuse, to reputational damage as the world scrutinises the plan’s delivery.

If the stated intent of the Peace Plan – “Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza” – is to be realised, then states, businesses and investors must now move intentionally.

Accountability, heightened human rights due diligence and Palestinian leadership must be prioritised and placed at the centre of any plans. Anything less would be profiting from tragedy. And lasting peace will depend on them.