Plan to raise Dead Sea

Press, 12 September 1980, Page 16

Plan to raise Dead Sea

From the ‘‘Economist,” London

Israel’s plan to join the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean by canal and tunnel is presented as technically straightforward and economically promising; politically it is dynamite. By using the 1300-feet drop between the two seas to produce hydro-electricity, the scheme’s supporters claim that it will meet half the country's energy needs by the year 2000. It will provide water for industry, bring life to an underdeveloped part of the country and, as a bonus, restore water to the Dead Sea, which in midsummer shrinks to two vast puddles. That, at ■least, was the attractive prospect before the Israeli Cabinet, which approved the Echeme on August 24th.

But the Dead Sea is not Israel’s alone. Half of it lies in Jordan. Not unexpectedly, Jordan has rejected the Israeli plan. It says that if the level of the sea were raised; Jordan’s huge potash plant would be flooded. Potash is Jordan’s second most important natural resource, after phosphate. Some SSOOM has been invested in

the potash plant by international agencies and banks who have a keen interest in seeing that their money is not submerged. Jordan claims to be confident that, because of Arab financial clout, no bank or government will put up the money for the canal. Well, maybe. Israel, even if it does, not always remain as broke as it is now, will certainly not be able to supply the capital from its own resources. In any event, . say the Jordanians, without their agreement the scheme is simply a non-starter. Nonsense, say the Israelis. And add that if Jordan plays it that way, Israel will stymie the completion of Jordan’s own vital water project. Egypt has also delivered its Dead Sea scroll, pointing out that the route favoured by Israel crosses the occupied Gaza Strip and would be violating international law. The route tentatively chosen by a committee of experts headed by Professor Yuval Neeman, a nuclear scientist and political hawk, starts near Khan Yunis in southern Gaza. The experts

claim that all their decisions were made . on technical grounds; but some political expediency wduld seem to have crept in. Will the plans become further reason for Israel’s continuing interest in Gaza? However, if insurmountable difficulties t.re raised about building on the Gaza Strip, an alternative route, costing some S7OM more, could start farther north. The last word has not been said on the route: several experts favour a canal through the West Bank’s Jordan valley—beat that for political explosiveness.. The idea of a canal has been around'for more than a century: General Gordon of Khartoum took' a fancy to it as a possible defence line — and' it could still have strategic uses. But it now tempts chiefly because of the price of oil. The Cabinet has been told that, at an estimated cost of S7OOM, the canal is a better proposition than building a conventional power station. This makes it an ' attractive proposition even though the estimate is almost certainly too low.