By Peter Feuilherade
This article
was first published in MENA Rail News on 8 October 2013
Ignoring
objections from Israel’s Environmental Protection Minister, a coalition of
activists and environmentalists, economists and even the former head of Mossad,
the country’s powerful intelligence agency, a ministerial committee on 6
October approved the building of a twin-track high-speed railway line linking Tel
Aviv and the port of Eilat in the Gulf of Aqaba.
No budget
costings were included in the announcement, but latest estimates are in excess
of 5.6 billion US dollars. Construction work on the 350-km line, which would
carry passengers as well as freight, will take an estimated 10 years. If
completed, it will be the most expensive transport project in Israel’s 65-year
history.
The scheme
is being pushed by Transport Minister Yisrael Katz and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, who says it would have great strategic significance for Israel. But Minister
of Environmental Protection Amir Peretz opposes the project, arguing it would harm
the environment. The line, with trains travelling at 250 km per hour, “is liable
to turn into a fast track to destroying nature in the Negev [desert] and
damaging the Gulf of Eilat,” Peretz said in a joint statement with the Israel
Nature and Parks Authority and the Society for the Protection of Nature in
Israel. Other critics say the project will also divert resources that could be
spent on improving public transport in urban areas.
Giving
details of the route, Israeli business news website Globes reported that the first 90‑km section of the line from Tel
Aviv to Beersheva was already completed, and the second 35‑km section to Dimona
required a second line. The website added: “The third 65‑km section from Dimona
to Hatzeva will be especially difficult, with a doubling of the existing track
to Nahal Zin and 9.2 km of tunnels to reach the Arava. The fourth 160‑km
section will run to the northern entrance to Eilat, where the new port channel
will be built. The line will not reach the current port. In addition to the
tunnels, the route will require 63 bridges extending over 4.5 km.”
The announcement
made no mention of a link with Israel’s Mediterranean port of Ashdod, creating
a “land bridge” between Europe and Asia, which had been touted as the project’s
main purpose. Options for linking the railway to the ports are expected to be
discussed later.
Netivei
Yisrael, Israel’s national roads company, says the proposed rail link is not
meant to compete with Egypt’s Suez Canal, which connects the Mediterranean and
the Red Sea. However, Israel’s Haaretz newspaper quoted estimates that Israel’s
planned rail line would allow for “hundreds of thousands of crates of goods to
travel between the two continents as well. In addition, Israel will be able to
import more than 200,000 cars using the cargo train and export five million
tons of chemicals.”
Foreign interest
According to
Globes, the Prime Minister's Office
director‑general Harel Locker is in favour of financing the project as part of
an agreement between governments, rather than through a tender in the normal way.
The Chinese, French and Spanish governments are interested in the project, and tentative
plans are for the project to be managed by a Chinese company that would build
and operate the railway line.
However,
former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said Chinese involvement might damage Israel’s
ties with the United States and Europe. He warned that if China “actively
controlled” the track between Eilat and Ashdod, and the port that the
government wants to build in Eilat, it would create a situation in which China would
control “political and economic pressure points” within Israel.
In response,
Israel's Transport Ministry said: “The government of Israel views positively
the interest of the Chinese in the Eilat railway project, and is promoting
economic ties with China, something that does not go against the close ties
that Israel shares with the United States.”
The latest
decision suggests that Netanyahu’s argument in favour of the project’s
strategic importance for Israel is taking precedence – for the time being, at
least – over the economic counter‑view that a route offering both passenger and
freight transport would not be financially feasible.
