The Land Link to the Gulf: Dream or Mirage?

 

The war in Gaza is perceived as an initiative of Hamas, unrelated to Egypt or the peace initiative between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which includes a proposal to create an alternative to the Suez Canal through a land route across Saudi Arabia, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. This is despite the fact that past experience has shown the difficulties involved in replacing major waterways. Examples include: Turkey - attempting to promote the construction of a canal to compete with the Bosphorus Strait; Nicaragua - a Chinese initiative to dig a canal to compete with the Panama Canal is facing difficulties; Thailand - a plan to dig a canal as an alternative to the Strait of Malacca is encountering resistance. Past experience shows that such initiatives struggle to materialize, due to geopolitical and economic concerns.

Admittedly, the projects mentioned are indeed different from a land route, such as one that would connect the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. These are alternative waterways, while the proposed land route is of a completely different kind. For example, the railway line in Mexico, which connects the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean and competes with the Panama Canal in the field of container traffic. However, it is important to note that land routes can also compete with sea routes, and sometimes even be a more convenient alternative. Indeed, the establishment of a land route may arouse less opposition compared to an alternative sea route, partly because it is less threatening to the interests of the countries controlling the existing sea routes, mainly because the volume of traffic on a land route is lower than on a sea route. Nevertheless, any transportation project of international scale, aimed at competing with an existing route, is expected to raise significant objections and difficulties, both geopolitically and economically. This is also due to the uncertainty surrounding the future of container traffic, which is becoming autonomous.

Control of major waterways is a significant source of power, and the superpowers do not give it up easily. The connection of international waterways to large-scale international conflicts is extensive. Examples: China is trying to expand its influence in strategic areas, including important waterways, and its struggle for control of the South China Sea is linked to control of the Strait of Malacca. The United States views the Panama Canal as an international waterway that is a strategic asset and vital to maintaining world order, and there are growing calls to restore sovereignty over the canal. It may oppose initiatives that could threaten the existing balance in freedom of navigation.

From the perspective of a power like Russia, the transition from an international waterway like the Bosphorus Strait to a national waterway west of Istanbul, as Turkey aspires to build, may be interpreted as a partial loss of its freedom of movement. Here are a few reasons why: Control - national waterways are under the exclusive control of the countries through which they pass. These countries can impose restrictions, fees, or even close the route to ships from other countries, which could harm the interests of powers like Russia. Economy - transit fees on national routes may be more expensive. Security - powers want major waterways to remain open to free passage to ensure their ability to transport goods and military forces freely. Control of a route by one country could threaten their security. Therefore, it is possible that the Russia-Ukraine war, which is partly also a war over control of the Black Sea, broke out also because of Erdogan's aspiration to establish the alternative canal to the Bosphorus Strait.

Inevitably, a land alternative to the Suez Canal that would pass through Israel would also lead to the establishment of a huge port in Gaza, which would bring economic prosperity to the Strip, create jobs, and develop infrastructure. The idea of a land transportation route between the Gulf and Israel, with a huge port in Gaza, is seemingly tempting. It has the potential to bring peace and prosperity to the residents of Gaza, to the extent that it will become the "Singapore" of the region. Egypt, however, may oppose the project. The main reason for this is the fear of damage to revenues from the Suez Canal, which is a significant source of income for Egypt. The Egyptian interests are: maintaining a monopoly - Egypt is interested in maintaining its status as the central maritime transit route between Asia and Europe; revenues - the Suez Canal generates huge revenues for Egypt, and it will not want another project to compete with it; regional influence - Egypt sees itself as a regional leader, and a project that would reduce its importance could damage its status.

The idea of a land route between the Gulf and Israel with a port in Gaza has enormous potential, but it encounters a significant obstacle in the form of Egyptian interests. There is no chance of convincing Egypt that it will not harm its interests and bring it economic and political benefits.

The idea of the future political and economic future of the Gaza Strip, once it is freed from the pressure to become "Singapore" and focuses on an economy based on local production and trade with Egypt and Israel, presents a more pragmatic and practical approach to economic development and regional stability, according to which the conflict between it and the State of Israel will fade away on its own. Here are some potential advantages to this approach: Realism - the "Singapore" model requires specific conditions that are difficult to replicate in Gaza, such as political stability, a strong judicial system, and advanced infrastructure. Focusing on local production and regional trade offers a more realistic way to achieve economic growth. Abandoning the dream of becoming "Singapore" is abandoning the grandiose national aspirations of the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, it offers other advantages: Utilizing comparative advantages - Gaza can leverage its existing resources, such as cheap labor, geographical proximity to large markets, and agricultural tradition, to develop local industries and export products and services to Egypt and Israel. Reducing dependence - focusing on regional trade can reduce Gaza's dependence on international aid and external bodies, thereby strengthening its economic and political independence.

Promoting peace with Saudi Arabia and establishing a land link between Israel and the Persian Gulf are two moves with enormous potential to change the face of the Middle East. Peace with Saudi Arabia will bring unprecedented regional stability. It will open new channels for economic and political cooperation, help curb Iranian influence, and promote normalization with other Muslim countries. The land link will turn Israel into a land bridge between Asia and Europe, significantly shorten the transportation times of goods, reduce costs and open new markets, and strengthen Israel's position as a transportation and tourism center. However, it is important to remember that these processes require delicate and careful handling. The land link raises security and political concerns in the countries involved, requires complex coordination and large investments in infrastructure, and may encounter opposition from interested parties. Therefore, the two processes should be promoted gradually, taking into account the different sensitivities and building trust between the parties. An organic approach, based on quiet and modest dialogue, may yield better results in the long run.

The State of Israel should reconsider the decision to promote the transportation project between the Persian Gulf and Israel, in order to maintain good relations with Egypt and calm the conflict with the Gaza Strip. Even with Iran, which sees the planned land link as a threat - for the reasons listed above - there is a chance of easing tensions. This is despite the huge investments made by Israel, mainly in the construction of the Gulf Port in Haifa. It would be appropriate to invest in the existing airport in Haifa and expand it, instead of trying to connect the seaport and the city to the Persian Gulf. Expanding Haifa Airport and turning it into another central airport in Israel, with a thriving airport city, can have many advantages: Increasing accessibility to Haifa - a large and active airport will attract tourists, business people, and investors to the city, and strengthen its position as a leading economic and cultural center in the north of the country. Creating jobs - an airport city will lead to the development of new businesses and the creation of many jobs in various fields, such as aviation, tourism, trade, and services. Strengthening the local economy - increasing economic activity in the city will lead to increased tax revenues and contribute to the development of improved urban infrastructure and services. Sustainable development - a modern airport can be planned with environmental considerations in mind, using green technologies and reducing pollutant emissions.

The sphinx face of Egypt