On January 22, 2026, Jared Kushner stepped onto the Davos stage and did something the comfortable classes in Washington refuse to do: he put forward a concrete, ambitious master plan to rebuild Gaza into a functioning economy and stable society. The proposal — presented under the Trump-era Board of Peace initiative — imagines phased redevelopment from Rafah northward and a mixture of housing, industry, and coastal tourism that would transform the rubble into opportunity.
The plan outlines a multi‑phase blueprint with estimates in the tens of billions, detailed renderings for New Rafah and other zones, and infrastructure elements like a new port, logistics corridors, and vocational training to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Kushner argued for zoning that separates industrial and residential areas, high‑rise coastal development for tourism, and targeted investments in utilities and education to raise Gaza’s GDP and living standards.
Patriots should welcome bold ideas that rely on private capital and market incentives rather than endless, failed aid packages run through UN bureaucracies. Kushner is right to make security a prerequisite for reconstruction; a lasting peace demands disarmament of Hamas and clear guarantees that terrorism will not be reborn from the ruins. The American people cannot stomach rebuilding a terror infrastructure, and any reconstruction plan must be tied to verifiable security outcomes.
Of course the usual suspects are already calling the plan unrealistic and imperialistic, clutching their pearls about consultation and representation while offering no viable alternative to perpetual rubble. Those critiques ignore two truths: first, the status quo only benefits Hamas and the aid‑complex elite; second, transformative projects require visionaries who will take the political heat to get things done. The cynics love talking about obstacles while doing nothing to remove them; conservatives must call that what it is: cowardice dressed up as concern.
Internationalists and Arab bureaucracies will object to American and Israeli involvement, but predictably their objections focus on preserving influence rather than delivering results to the Palestinian families who deserve better lives. Critics have painted the plan as a PR exercise, yet the alternative is to leave Gaza as an incubator for the next crisis; real leadership means offering a path out of dependency and terror, not endless moralizing.
This is a moment for conservatives to back decisive, responsible action: support reconstruction that insists on demilitarization, demands transparent private investment, and ties citizenship and property rights to renouncing terror. Hold the Board of Peace and any participating nations accountable with strict benchmarks and on‑the‑ground verification so that American support builds nations, not safe havens for extremists. If we want peace, prosperity, and security in the Middle East, we should be the ones to build it — boldly, unapologetically, and with American leadership front and center.
