Alternative to Suez Canal: Another canal through Israel

The United States considered a proposal to use 520 nuclear bombs to carve out an alternative to the Suez Canal though Israel in the 1960s, according to a declassified memorandum. The plan never came to fruition, but having an alternative waterway to the Suez Canal could have been looked into once again, after a cargo ship stuck in the narrow path, blocking one of the world's most vital shipping routes.

According to the 1963 memorandum, which was declassified in 1996, the plan would have relied on 520 nuclear bombs to carve out the waterway. The memo called for the "use of nuclear explosives for excavation of Dead Sea canal across the Negev desert."

The memorandum was from the US Department of Energy-backed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It suggested that an "interesting application of nuclear excavation would be a sea-level canal 160 miles long across Israel."

Conventional methods of excavation would be "prohibitively expensive," the memo said. "It appears that nuclear explosives could be profitably applied to this situation."

The memo added that "such a canal would be a strategically valuable alternative to the present Suez Canal and would probably contribute greatly to economic development."

As part of the pricing model, the memorandum estimated that four 2-megaton devices would be needed for every mile, which Wellerstein calculated as meaning "520 nukes" or 1.04 gigatons of explosives.

One possible route the memorandum proposed stretched across the Negev desert in Israel, connecting the Mediterranean to the Gulf of Aqaba, opening access to the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. 

The laboratory noted that there were 130 miles of "virtually unpopulated desert wasteland, and are thus amenable to nuclear excavation methods." 

The "crude preliminary investigation" suggested that using bombs to create a canal through Israel "appears to be within the range of technological feasibility," the memo said.

But the memo conceived that one problem, which the authors had not taken into consideration, might be "political feasibility, as it is likely that the Arab countries surrounding Israel would strongly object to the construction of such a canal."

The memo came as the US Atomic Energy Commission was investigating using "peaceful nuclear explosions" to dig out useful infrastructure, Forbes reported in 2018. There were also plans to use this method to dig out a canal in Central America, Forbes reported.

But the PNE project remained experimental, after the US found that 27 experiments with PNEs heavily irradiated the landscape. The Atomic Energy Commission was also abolished in 1974. 

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory still exists. According to its website, it is dedicated to "ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent."

The 1963 memorandum had also come less than a decade after the Suez crisis, a conflict for the control of the strategic waterway which was a defining event in the Cold War.

Arab League declares annexation ‘war crime’

Israeli plan to apply sovereignty to any part of the West Bank will end the two-state solution and eliminate the possibility of establishing an independent, sovereign and geographically viable Palestinian state, said Riyad Malki, Foreign Minister of Palestinian Authority.

In a speech before an emergency videoconference meeting of the Arab League foreign ministers, he said if implemented, the Israeli plan would also place al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem under Israeli control “before it is demolished and replaced by the ostensible Temple.”

The meeting was held at the request of the Palestinians to discuss the “dangers” of the Israeli plan.

The Arab ministers condemned the plan as a “new war crime” and “flagrant violation of United Nations resolutions and international law.” They urged the United States to back away from supporting the plan and said the Arab countries will support by all political, diplomatic, legal and financial means any decisions taken by the Palestinians to confront it.

The foreign ministers also called on the Quartet (United States, Russia, European Union and United Nations) to convene an urgent meeting to save the chances of peace and a two-state solution and to take a position consistent with international decisions to compel Israel to “stop implementing its colonial plans, including annexation and settlement expansion.”

Malki warned that if the Israeli plan is implemented, it would “transform the conflict from a political to a religious conflict that will go on forever because the Palestinians would not accept it and won’t accept anything less than the borders of 1967 to establish their state, with East Jerusalem as its capital.”

The Israeli plan to apply sovereignty to any part of the West Bank “would never guarantee stability, security and peace,” he said.

Malki accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic “to pass his decisions to annex large parts of the occupied Palestinian territory to Israel.”

 He also urged the Arab states to provide financial aid to the Palestinians as they face difficult financial conditions “due to the restrictions of the occupation.”

Any Israeli decision to annex parts of the West Bank would not change the status of these lands, Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit said in a speech during the meeting, adding that they will remain “occupied territories in accordance with international law.”

The purpose of Thursday’s meeting was to warn about the “dangers of the Israeli schemes to annex parts of the West Bank and the possible repercussions on regional stability,” he said. 

Turmoil in Jordan or coup sponsored by Israel

Former Mossad agent Roi Shpushnik was allegedly involved in the attempted coup in Jordan, according to reports in Jordan reported by Maariv, The Jerusalem Post's sister publication. According to the reports, the former Israeli agent offered Prince Hamza a plane to escape from the kingdom.

Earlier on Sunday, Jordan's Deputy Prime Minister Ayman Safadi said that Prince Hamza had liaised with foreign parties over a plot to destabilize the country.   

On Saturday the military said it had issued a warning to the prince over actions targeting "security and stability" in the key US ally. Prince Hamza later said he was under house arrest. Several high-profile figures were also detained.

"The investigations had monitored interferences and communications with foreign parties over the right timing to destabilize Jordan," Safadi said.

These included a Mossad agent contacting Prince Hamza's wife to organize a plane for the couple to leave Jordan, he said.

Many Jordanians were still grappling for answers in the aftermath of reports that Jordanian security forces foiled an attempt by Hamzah and some of his associates to topple the regime of King Abdullah.

People around Hamzah communicated with entities calling themselves “external opposition,” Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said Sunday. He did not provide details about the “external opposition.”

Sixteen Jordanians have been detained in connection with the case, including Bassem Awadallah, a former head of the royal court, and Sharif bin Zaid, a member of the royal family, Safadi said. He accused the detainees of planning to “undermine the security” of Jordan.

Safadi accused Hamzah of sending out a video message on Saturday night as part of an attempt to “distort the facts and gain local and foreign sympathy.”

Abdullah received phone calls on Sunday from the kings of Morocco and Bahrain and the emirs of Qatar and Kuwait, who expressed their countries’ “full solidarity” with Jordan.

The leaders also voiced support for all measures and decisions taken by Abdullah to safeguard Jordan’s security and stability, the Jordanian news agency Petra reported.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation Council also voiced full support for Abdullah in maintaining security and stability in Jordan.

Trade with India: A debacle caused by lack of coordination among government functionaries

The reversal of the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) decision on imports from India by the cabinet not only proves absence of coordination within the government, but also shows absence of comprehension and prudent thinking of serious matters that require sensible and level-headed approach.

A few days ago, at a press conference, Hammad Azhar, the newly appointed finance minister, had talked about ECC’s decision on trade with India, was based on economic factors. Interestingly, the summary moved in this regard was signed by Prime Minister himself.

The announcement made headlines both at home and in the neighboring country. The decision was viewed as part of recent measures to deescalate hostilities between Pakistan and India. Earlier, there was agreement of ceasefire across the line of control (LoC) as well as speeches were delivered by the Prime Minister and the Army Chief at the Islamabad Security Dialogue.

Ironically, the Federal Cabinet rejected the idea of opening trade between the two countries, leaving both the nations and the world stunned at the incongruence among the key facets of the government.

The debacle raises several questions that cannot be shrugged off by ministers. It has caused embarrassment. It points to a faulty system and also creates the impression that the key job of decision-making is conducted in a juvenile manner.

The explanations from Federal Ministers that ECC decisions can be overturned by the cabinet look novice. In fact Azhar at no point gave the impression that the ‘decision’ to trade with India was just a proposal under review.

It has now transpired that the foreign minister and some key members of government are against the idea of trading with India until New Delhi reviews its Kashmir policy and rescinds its decision to revoke special status of Indian held Kashmir.

While this approach may be in line with Pakistan’s stance on Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, it is also true that historically CBMs have been a part of the Pakistan-India equation.

The ECC decision may have been ostensibly about trade, but it would have needed input from all government departments, including the security establishment. Any decision having long-term consequences just can’t be made in isolation.

The fiasco is casting a cloud of uncertainty over Khan’s leadership skills. As demonstrated by this latest U-turn, communication problems, an inability to make and stick to decisions and poor conflict-resolution skills are becoming the hallmark of this government.

The nation has a right to know who is responsible for this debacle and what action will be taken to avoid such blunders in the future.