Who Should Pay for Gaza’s Ruins? UN Expert Points Finger at Arms Suppliers, Not Just Israel

The question hanging over Gaza’s mountain of rubble has taken an uncomfortable turn: Should nations that supplied the weapons that helped reduce Gaza to ruins also foot the bill for rebuilding it? Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian territory, says yes—and she’s naming names.

In a December 12 address in London, Albanese challenged the conventional narrative that reconstruction responsibility begins and ends with Israel. The United States, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, she argued, cannot simply wash their hands of Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe. These four nations, after all, have supplied the vast majority of Israel’s foreign weapons. Should they not share the financial burden their military hardware helped create?

What Exactly Was Said?

Speaking at an ODI Global event, Albanese didn’t mince words: the cost of rebuilding Gaza should be extracted not only from Israel’s coffers but from its primary arms suppliers. Her reasoning? They provided the “means of destruction.” The statement builds on her October 2025 UN report, “Gaza Genocide: a collective crime,” which meticulously documented how military support from these nations enabled operations that have left nearly 800,000 Palestinians vulnerable to disease and exposure as winter storms collapse fragile shelters.

When Did This Become Their Responsibility?

The timeline matters. Since October 2023, these four nations have authorized billions in military exports to Israel, even as Gaza’s civilian infrastructure was systematically reduced to debris. The US alone—responsible for 66-69% of Israel’s foreign arms—has maintained 751 active weapons sales worth $39.2 billion as of April 2025. Germany delivered €489 million in military equipment between October 2023 and July 2025. Italy, despite suspending new exports in October 2024, continues fulfilling pre-existing contracts. The UK, while exporting less than 1% of Israel’s arms directly, has facilitated US supply lines through its Cyprus bases and flown over 600 surveillance missions sharing intelligence with Israeli forces.

Who Bears the Real Cost?

Numbers tell part of the story. In Gaza, 795,000 Palestinians now face heightened risk from flooding and disease outbreaks in displacement camps that “cannot withstand flooding,” according to the International Organization for Migration. At least 14 people died in the past 24 hours alone as storm-weakened buildings collapse on families sheltering inside—eight from one family in a single five-story building. Civil defence teams, lacking heavy machinery, struggle to retrieve bodies from 13 recently collapsed houses.

Yet the human cost extends beyond Gaza. Albanese herself faces US sanctions that treat her “like a criminal,” barring her from traveling to the country and severely impacting her professional work. The price of asking uncomfortable questions, it seems, is personal and professional isolation.

Why Should Arms Suppliers Pay?

This is where Albanese’s argument cuts deepest. She contends that administrative detention and torture systems Israel employs trace directly back to British colonial practices in Palestine—a legacy the UK has never fully accounting for. The US, Germany, Italy, and UK aren’t neutral bystanders; they’re “the main arms suppliers to Israel” who knowingly provided weapons used in operations that have killed thousands of civilians.

The legal framework is clear in Albanese’s view: if these nations are complicit in the destruction, they cannot escape responsibility for reconstruction. It’s not charity—it’s obligation. The European Commission has acknowledged that “the killing of civilians in Gaza has been indefensible,” yet aid trucks remain blocked at borders while weapons flow freely.

A Question of Precedent

What happens next sets a precedent. Will donor conferences and humanitarian organizations again be left begging for reconstruction funds while weapons exporters continue business as usual? Or will this mark a shift toward holding arms suppliers financially accountable for the devastation their products enable?

German police are currently investigating Israeli football fans for hate speech. Italian authorities have suspended some exports. The UK has paused a fraction of its licenses. But piecemeal measures won’t rebuild Gaza’s schools, hospitals, and homes—especially when Albanese argues there are “no schools in Gaza because there are no children left,” echoing chants from extremist supporters.

The fundamental question remains: If you help break it, do you not own it? For Albanese, the answer is self-evident. For the arms-exporting nations she names, silence suggests they hope the question simply goes away.