Gaza Land Involved in a Controversial Proposal: Tokenizing Gaza
A highly controversial proposal has emerged, suggesting the sale of land in Gaza via blockchain tokens, a plan that has been met with immediate and fierce backlash from Palestinian activists. The scheme, reportedly aided by the Tony Blair Institute, envisioned paying half a million Palestinians to leave their land, paving the way for the region’s redevelopment with Dubai-style artificial islands and “blockchain-trade initiatives.” Adding to the contentious nature, the leaked slide deck even proposed Elon Musk and Donald Trump-themed areas within the reconstructed Gaza.
This audacious plan, first reported by the Financial Times, has been widely condemned as opportunistic and grotesque, particularly given the ongoing humanitarian crisis and recent conflict in the region. The very idea of monetizing land in such a manner, amidst immense suffering, has ignited moral outrage globally.
Blockchain Tokenization: A Disturbing Application
The core of the proposal involved placing public land in Gaza into a trust, with ownership then to be sold via “digital tokens traded on a blockchain.” Furthermore, Gazans could contribute their private land to this trust in exchange for a token that would grant them the right to a housing unit within the redeveloped area. Chris Yin, co-founder and CEO of RWA project Plume Network, explained the technical process: “The title for the land is put into a special vehicle that only does one thing—in this case, a trust that holds the title.
Then the shares that represent ownership in that trust are tokenized and minted on a blockchain.” Sam Mudie, co-founder and CEO of tokenization project Savea, added that this would transform Gaza land into an international investment opportunity, with tokens potentially traded on centralized exchanges. While real-world asset (RWA) tokenization is a growing trend, its application in such a sensitive and conflict-ridden context has been deemed profoundly disturbing.
Palestinian Activists and Supporters Outcry
The proposed plan was met with immediate and severe backlash from Palestinian advocates and human rights organizations, who described it as “not just grotesque,” but “evil.” Paul Biggar, founder of Tech for Palestine, reacted with outrage, stating, “Those fucking monsters want to steal all Palestinian land and sell it back to them?” Dr. Ashok Kumar, associate professor of political economy at Birkbeck Business School, highlighted the core sentiment: “Palestinians want to live in their home.
That is the simple truth at the heart of this.” He further suggested that the “siege” on Gaza has been designed to “make life so unbearable for the survivors that they are forced to ‘choose’ exile.” Loopify, a pseudonymous game developer and founder of the charity CryptoGaza, succinctly captured the moral outrage: “The lives of the people and their homes are worth less than dollars to them.” The strong emotional and ethical objections underscore the profound disconnect between the financial proposition and the human reality.
The Humanitarian Crisis and Relocation Model
A particularly chilling aspect of the proposal, according to a source who spoke to the Financial Times, was the incentive model for Palestinians to leave Gaza. A Boston Consulting Group (BCG) financial model predicted that 25% of Palestinians would voluntarily vacate the region. The calculation underpinning this prediction was that relocating Palestinians outside of Gaza would be financially cheaper than providing support to them while simultaneously reconstructing the area.
This utilitarian approach, prioritizing cost-efficiency over human dignity and fundamental rights, has drawn widespread condemnation. Critics argue that such a model ignores the deep historical and emotional ties Palestinians have to their land, framing forced displacement as an economic solution rather than a humanitarian crisis requiring support and the right of return.
Distancing from the Controversial Plan
In the wake of the intense public backlash, both the Tony Blair Institute and Boston Consulting Group have sought to distance themselves from the controversial proposal. Both organizations declined Decrypt’s request for comment but have made statements to the Financial Times. The Tony Blair Institute claimed limited participation in the project, attempting to minimize its involvement.
BCG, on its part, stated that its leadership was misled about the true scope and implications of the project, suggesting a lack of full awareness or oversight regarding the sensitive nature of the plan. These attempts to disavow the proposal highlight the immediate negative public relations fallout and the recognition of the severe ethical misjudgment involved in such a scheme.
Dubai-Style Development and Crypto Ambitions
Beyond the land tokenization, the leaked deck also included ambitious plans for the physical reconstruction of Gaza, envisioning “world-class resorts” dubbed the “Gaza Trump Riviera & Islands,” alongside an industrial area named “The Elon Musk ‘Smart Manufacturing’ Zone.” This vision echoes President Trump’s earlier proposal in February to reconstruct Gaza under U.S. rule as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” The deck also proposed a man-made coastline, reminiscent of Dubai’s artificial islands, coupled with “blockchain-based trade initiatives.” Sam Mudie explained that this could imply a Gaza stablecoin or processing the region’s trade on the blockchain to reduce paperwork and increase transparency.
Chris Yin suggested it could mean fostering a crypto-friendly environment, similar to Dubai, to stimulate blockchain activity in the region. These elements reveal a grand, speculative vision for Gaza’s future, heavily influenced by high-profile figures and modern digital finance concepts.
Technical Feasibility Meets Moral Objections
While the plan incorporates elements of real-world asset tokenization, a burgeoning field in blockchain, experts question its technical and legal feasibility, especially in a region as complex as Gaza. Sam Mudie concluded, “Frankly, the gap between what the deck briefly alludes to and what is technically and legally possible is so vast.” He further elaborated that “Implementing commercial-scale real estate/land tokenization is probably still 2-3 years away, and that would be for small, straightforward use-cases—not massive, war-ridden plots of land in a politically and geographically contested country.”
This technical skepticism, combined with the overwhelming moral objections from Palestinian supporters, who view such proposals as exploitative and a continuation of land dispossession, underscores why the plan has been met with such universal condemnation. The ethical implications far outweigh any speculative financial gains.
