An American Project to Rebuild Gaza.. Soft Colonization or False Dawn?

At a moment when destruction prevails over everything else in the Gaza Strip, leaving hundreds of thousands of citizens without shelter, food, or water, an American plan emerges under the name "Sunrise Project." However, this name, as much as it suggests hope, according to experts, hides behind it a political vision laden with doubts, and appears closer to re-engineering Gaza to serve foreign interests, rather than rescuing a people experiencing one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history.

The glaring paradox is that the project is marketed while the war has not stopped, the siege has not been lifted, and the occupation continues to impose its realities by force. In this context, talking about a "smart city" and a "Mediterranean Riviera" becomes a form of political denial of reality, and an attempt to beautify the scene of blood and rubble with images of glass towers and colorful charts.

The project was prepared by a team led by Jared Kushner, son-in-law of the American President Donald Trump, in cooperation with the American envoy Steve Witkoff.

It proposes transforming Gaza over ten years into a technological and tourist hub at a cost of up to $112 billion, in a plan presented as "reconstruction," but it ignores the fundamental question: reconstruction for whose benefit?

Reconstruction without context

"Sunrise" relies on a 32-page presentation filled with images of shiny futuristic cities, and promises to move Gaza residents from tents to luxury apartments," in a marketing speech closer to real estate investment offers than to humanitarian recovery plans after a devastating war.

But this speech ignores the fact that Gaza residents today are unable even to bring in tents, and that tens of thousands of families live in the open air, while crossings are closed and basic relief materials are prevented from reaching more than two million displaced people.

Political analyst Dr. Saeed Abu Rahma sees that the project, in its timing and formulation, is closer to a political pressure tool than to an implementable plan. Presenting a giant reconstruction amid ongoing aggression means practically jumping over the roots of the crisis, and turning reconstruction into an alternative to the political solution.

And Abu Rahma confirms that the most dangerous thing in the project is its consecration of the idea that Gaza's solution is "economic-relief," not "political-liberation," which serves an American-Israeli vision that seeks to separate national rights from humanitarian needs, and transform the Palestinian issue into a "crisis management file."

Who owns Gaza?

The plan, which divides the sector into four phases starting from Rafah and ending in Gaza City, raises questions about the fate of the citizens. Will they be partners in planning and building? Or just a cheap labor force in a city managed from abroad? Or will displacement be presented as a "transitional" solution under the guise of development? Abu Rahma wonders.

And he emphasizes that any real reconstruction cannot succeed without full Palestinian sovereignty, lifting the siege, and ending Israeli security control. It also cannot be done without Palestinian ownership of the entire process, away from international trusteeship or politically conditional investment.

And he continues, similarly, the project lacks any serious talk about justice and accountability, for there is no sustainable reconstruction without holding accountable those who led the war of destruction, and without guarantees that prevent the catastrophe from recurring. As for reconstruction built on impunity, it will be nothing but a temporary respite before a new round of destruction.

Soft colonization with a technological facade

The expert in political affairs Hani Al-Masri goes to a harsher description, considering that "Sunrise" represents a new form of colonization, wrapped in modernity and technology, while keeping the essence of control and dominance intact.

And Al-Masri warns that the plan talks extensively about disarming the resistance and reshaping governance in Gaza, in exchange for near-total silence on Israeli withdrawal or ending the occupation. Moreover, some proposals, according to Al-Masri, hint at keeping buffer zones under Israeli control, with clear American support.

In addition, the funding question stands out as one of the most obscure aspects. Who will actually pay the $112 billion? And Al-Masri doubts the United States' readiness to bear the burden, warning of a scenario of burdening Gaza residents with long-term debts that shackle their future instead of liberating them.

In conclusion, from Al-Masri's perspective, the "Sunrise Project" appears closer to an investment dream intended to be imposed on the ruins of an exhausted people, rather than a real rescue plan.

And the two experts emphasize that Gaza does not need glass towers before stopping the bombing, nor PowerPoint presentations before lifting the siege. What it needs is justice, sovereignty, and recognition of its people's rights. Anything else is nothing but a false dawn.