When Jared Kushner returned to the podium, he brought a blueprint with him. He presented what he called the “Board of Peace” at the Davos Forum, a comprehensive plan to turn Gaza from wreckage into a center of progress surrounded by skyscrapers. His message, “There is no Plan B,” was incredibly clear, and his confidence was evident.
The new proposal, which includes 180 high-rise skyscrapers, a dedicated port, and an airport, was formed over years of regional negotiations and interspersed with a business-minded approach. The anchor would be New Rafah, a city designed from the bottom up that will house more than 100,000 people and have integrated business districts, schools, and hospitals. The scale of the project is especially ambitious, and its design intentionally reflects wealth rather than just recovery, evoking coastal cities like Singapore or Dubai.
However, the structure of the strategy is predicated on one strict requirement: total demilitarization. Kushner brought up this issue again and time again, portraying it as the crucial element that will allow for investment, security, and the eventual removal of Israeli Defense Forces from the center of Gaza. He contended that in the absence of this disarmament, peace would remain a postponed promise and the skyline would remain on paper.
| Name | Jared Kushner |
|---|---|
| Role | Senior Advisor to President Donald Trump (2017–2021), Architect of Middle East Peace Plans |
| Key Initiative | “Deal of the Century” and the 2026 “Board of Peace” Gaza redevelopment plan |
| Highlights | Brokered Abraham Accords, Led US-Israel-Arab normalization efforts, Gaza Masterplan |
| Controversy | Criticized for undermining Palestinian sovereignty, prioritizing economic vision over political rights |
| External Link | CNN – Kushner’s Gaza Plan Overview |
The idea was immediately scrutinized for the lack of some performers. The longstanding organization in charge of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, was conspicuously left out. Previously hailed as stabilizing forces, international peacekeeping forces were hardly mentioned. The plan’s dependence on a recently established “technocratic committee”—described as independent but supported by U.S. oversight—raised concerns about legitimacy and control, even though the images showed promise.
I kept going back to one particular point during the livestream: when Kushner, speaking to the international investor community, stated, “We need you to take faith,” with an almost casual candor. It felt heavy to say that. It implied a need for faith in the plan’s core, despite its flaws and detractors, and it implied more than just financial risk.
The initiative intends to raise billions through donor meetings in Washington and strategic alliances. It is promised that economic opportunity will spread more quickly than political reluctance and that scaffolding may be built while diplomacy works itself out in the background. However, this region’s history is rarely linear.
The project’s architecture is incredibly successful in conveying ambition, but Palestinian leadership is alarmed by its governance system, which is led by a committee that has been vetted by the United States. Phrases like “new government in Gaza” have sparked criticism, with many viewing the action as an attempt to circumvent established power structures.
Critics find the initiative eerily familiar. A similar elegant economic strategy was presented at the Bahraini peace conference in 2019, however it was not well received. Opponents contend that despite the outward improvements, this version’s mentality is quite similar, placing highways before rights and houses before sovereignty.
Even nevertheless, construction trucks are already entering Rafah. Engineers have started the project’s initial stages by defining zoning for vital infrastructure. The newly appointed committee’s head, Ali Shaath, stated that the border crossing in Rafah is anticipated to reopen in a few days, both practically and symbolically enabling the entry of relief and supplies. In a news statement, he stated, “We are no longer closed to the future,” with cautious optimism.
Amazingly, the political dangers don’t seem to be deterring some early investors. Sovereign funds and private equity corporations appear to be interested in the prospect of economic return and the prestige of helping to maintain peace in the region. It’s unclear if that interest will continue, especially if resistance erupts or the political landscape changes.
Kushner’s meticulous approach is more influenced by infrastructure than ideology. His approach, which focuses on identifying weak places, injecting capital, and building over failure, is mostly borrowed from corporate restructuring in the context of international diplomacy. The problem is that Gaza is a densely populated area with layers of pain, pride, and constant conflict rather than a startup with manageable debt.
From a practical perspective, the plan’s sequencing is quite novel. The ceasefire will be followed by infrastructure. After demilitarization, investment will come. However, autonomy appears to be delayed. That is the subtle tension that underlies every shimmering image.
Many programs over the last ten years have promised change. Not many have succeeded. And even if the scope and scale of this idea have significantly improved, the same persistent issues still need to be addressed: To whom does peace mean? Who carries it out? And what happens if a break in progress occurs?
For the time being, Kushner is unwavering and cranes are ready to rise. His vision for Gaza is not merely innovative; it is reconstructed on the idea that strategy, money, and steel can achieve what politics cannot. The question of whether that belief is sufficient to see concrete through to completion is still up for debate.
