Red-Dead Canal or Med-Dead Canal?

by Maskil on August 13, 2007

The World Bank public hearings into the “Terms of Reference for the Feasibility Study of the “Red Dead Canal” in Jordan, Israel and Palestine” were to have taken place over the period August 8, 9, 12, 2007.

I’m still trying to wade through the relevant documentation (much of it referenced here), but my own view is that, if there’s to be a canal (or aqueduct), it should run from the Med (not the Red). It should begin in the vicinity of Acco/Haifa due East to Lake Kinneret, entirely through Israeli territory and via the shortest route. The water should be desalinated at the intake, using the difference in heights to generate the necessary power hydro-electrically.

The desalinated water should hopefully alter the character of the river system only for the better, and the increased inflow would help to rehabilitate both the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, as well as keeping Lake Kinneret “topped up” and perhaps even contribute to drawings for the National Water Carrier. The advantage of having the aqueduct running entirely through Israeli territory is that the project could never be held hostage by Israel’s neighbours in the event of the political climate changing.

I have started making notes for a longer piece to deal with my proposal in more depth.

August 8, 9, 12, 2007 – Red Dead Canal / World Bank Public Hearings

Related posts:

Share
  • ABi

    You said the advantage of this aqueduct running in Israel's territory would mean it wouldn't be held hostage by its neighbors. But who's to say that Israel won't do the same with the water supply?This Med-Kinneret canal won't be just supplying water only for Israel right? It should supply water for the whole region. I think cooperation between Israel and the surrounding states is imperative.

  • ABi

    You said the advantage of this aqueduct running in Israel's territory would mean it wouldn't be held hostage by its neighbors. But who's to say that Israel won't do the same with the water supply?
    This Med-Kinneret canal won't be just supplying water only for Israel right? It should supply water for the whole region. I think cooperation between Israel and the surrounding states is imperative.

  • Maskil

    ABi, thanks for stopping by and taking the trouble to leave a comment. Apologies that it’s only been published and responded to now; I’m not sure why I didn’t get a notification earlier.The points you raise are valid; I just happen to believe that Israel is less likely to use water as a weapon than her neighbours. I’m also not saying that she should have control over their water supply; just her own.In an ideal world, water schemes of this nature should benefit the entire region, not just one country. Realistically, however, Israel is in a state of war (or at least something less than peace) with most of her neighbours. I just don’t believe that schemes for regional cooperation have much chance of success before a state of real peace exists.

  • Maskil

    ABi, thanks for stopping by and taking the trouble to leave a comment. Apologies that it’s only been published and responded to now; I’m not sure why I didn’t get a notification earlier.

    The points you raise are valid; I just happen to believe that Israel is less likely to use water as a weapon than her neighbours. I’m also not saying that she should have control over their water supply; just her own.

    In an ideal world, water schemes of this nature should benefit the entire region, not just one country. Realistically, however, Israel is in a state of war (or at least something less than peace) with most of her neighbours. I just don’t believe that schemes for regional cooperation have much chance of success before a state of real peace exists.

Previous post:

Next post: