Comments on: Jordan plans own Red-Dead canal without Israel

By: Gabriel Eckstein (IWLP blogger)

Gabriel Eckstein (IWLP blogger) — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:28:49 +0000

Thanks for your comments and insight Benjamin. As you imply, there is definitely a political dimension that must be understood. For Jordan, they require assurances that they will not be dependent on Israel, especially for water. I suspect that the 1994 Israeli-Jordanian agreement that included Israel providing water to Jordan from the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) was somewhat difficult for Jordan. On the one hand, they need Israel’s cooperation to maximize efficiency; on the other hand, they have to distance themselves from and give an impression of equality (if not superiority) with Israel for the benefit of relations with their Arab brethren. As you suggest, since Jordan does not have an equivalent development project to the Tshuva endeavor, they could be perceived as weak among the Arab community. For the sake of Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, and the rest of the region, I would hope that such political maneuvering could someday be overcome.

By: Benjamin NOURY

Benjamin NOURY — Wed, 27 May 2009 08:13:55 +0000

Hi,

I quite agree with the idea that this unilateral project does not intend to replace the initial Red-Dead Canal. To my mind, Jordan is trying to shush Israeli background noises, like for example the Tshuva scheme, alternative pipe plan presented by an Israeli private developer that aims at transforming the Arava Valley into a new Vegas. On its side, Jordan does not have any counterpart to this type of projects. Moreover, all the stakeholders involved, and all the more Israeli, know how dependent Jordan is on this project. Therefore, the Hashemite Kingdom found itself in a “weak” position that this announcement could reverse. When listening to Jordan Authorities not longer than a month ago, it was obvious that the country would never have the financial resources to start its own project, unless asking the help of the Gulf States. But I doubt those would be willing to dive into such a thorny issue…

By: Gabriel Eckstein (IWLP blogger)

Gabriel Eckstein (IWLP blogger) — Tue, 26 May 2009 07:27:01 +0000

Hi Paul. Thanks for your comment. As far as I know, the World Bank is continuing with its feasibility assessment, which comports with Jordan’s position that its project is not intended to replace the original joint Jordanian-Israeli project. As two canals sounds like a rather preposterous idea, my sense is that Jordan is merely trying to pressure Israel to overcome the environmental opposition to the project. But, as you imply in your e-mail, there is a great deal of politics and other issues (not least of which is the extent to which the Palestinians might enjoy any benefits from a Med-Dead canal) complicating the situation. Time will tell …

By: PAUL F. MILLER

PAUL F. MILLER — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:29:13 +0000

World Bank was in the midst of assessing the feasibility of the joint project. I confess whenever I see the WORLD BANK, or WTO, or IMF, I rather blindly at first see “red” and admit to anger as my reading reveals their joint legacy is skewed to benefit “for-profit-corporate” interests at the expense of the country’s citizens. So I don’t know if the decision by Jordon to go it alone is as unwise as it might at first blush appear. From a “holistic” perspective it does not appear beneficial, but then that’s an easy position for me to take as I live in the United States and currently in an area with adequate water but with its own longer term water dilemma to face.