Megalomaniac projects promoted by politicians. Who needs it? Why is it good?

The train to Eilat, the relocation of the airport in the city, and other projects throughout Israel show that even today ministers who want to leave their mark on the country prefer to ignore the needs of the environment



With the entry of many new ministers into the government offices, it is time to ask why every minister thinks it is his duty to initiate megalomaniac enterprises and ventures "and leave his mark on history?" Why isn't pure thought and common sense ruling the heads of government? Why don't entrepreneurs make longer-term accounts from the tip of their noses? How much does it cost us, the residents, in economic resources and natural and environmental resources?

Here are some examples: It was possible to start "drying the swamps" by planting eucalyptus trees. The drying of the swamps is indeed a positive activity, except that the eucalyptus did not dry the swamps but the drainage. The swamps became settlements and agricultural fields, and the eucalyptus remained as an alien species - for better or at least for better.

And if you are dealing with swamps, then there is nothing like drying the sick. The stated intention was "to allow agricultural crops on the areas that will be drained" the result? Many of the burning peatlands are not suitable for agricultural cultivation, so some of them were re-flooded, which gave the patient a little thanks. The drying eliminated the important filter of the Kinneret water, caused the destruction of dozens of special and unique species and damaged a unique and special habitat in a way that cannot be repaired.

What did the drying do to the fish populations in the Kinneret? No one checked so no one knows.
Since there is no longer a filter that cleans the water that reaches the Sea of ​​Galilee, water rich in nitrogen compounds reaches the Sea of ​​Galilee, which causes algae blooms and damage to the quality of the water.

We arrived at the Sea of ​​Galilee and one of the largest and most important projects - the national carrier that supplied water to large areas of the country and enabled the establishment of settlements and the development of agriculture in the south of the country.
The immediate environmental impact - the drying up of the southern Jordan and subsequently and directly the drop in the level of the Dead Sea. Is this what the perpetrators intended?

Of course, if we reached the Dead Sea, we reached one of the more successful factories - the Dead Sea factories. But once again, success does not prevent the ongoing damage to the Dead Sea itself and its surroundings, and I have already written a lot about that.

Let's briefly mention the unrestricted construction and development on the beaches. A construction that provides residences for shepherds and counts and robs us of a landscape and a beach. Landscapes and beaches are also being usurped by the oil production projects in Adulam and the gas absorption facilities from the offshore drilling. Of course, these projects have enormous economic importance, but the economic importance does not detract from the need to maintain a clean environment and natural resources, and it is even appropriate that this need be studied by economists who will incorporate it into their calculations.

Let's move south: the megalomaniacal trope of the "peace leader" is still breathing despite signs of dying. It is appropriate that we be aware of the dangers and to provide water and save the Dead Sea - we will press for the alternative of being transported from the Mediterranean Sea. In the meantime, it has already been decided to "harvest salt" to prevent the flooding of the hotels. However, instead of neutralizing the risk of flooding by drying up pool 5 and creating a lagoon that will be a place for hotel visitors to wade and to carry water to the southern pools - the plan is to harvest salt in the entire pool. This means spending more than ten times what is reasonable and correct. Of course logical and correct for the public and not for "tycoons" as such.

North of Eilat, in front of Timna, Ibn-Pina was placed for an international airport at a distance of 5 km as the crow flies from Aqaba. When I asked why not instead cooperate with the Jordanians, pave a shuttle route from the Aqaba airport to a terminal on the border and allow direct passage of passengers to Eilat?
The answer was that "it's not safe", and I thought we had peace with the Jordanians.
If "it's not safe" how is an international airport a stone's throw from the border... safe?
How is a proximity of five kilometers between two airports safe?

At the time when there were discussions about the construction of the airport, all the greens got up on their "hind legs" to prevent its construction in the Evrona steppe and to prevent damage to the palm trees and the groves. The resistance was useful and the field was moved north, but the risk of injury returns in the "Southern Gate" project (below).

The railway project to Eilat is currently in advanced discussions. The track is intended for a high-speed train for passengers and freight. As for myself, I would be happy for the possibility to travel to the center by train instead of flying or driving, but it turns out that the cost of traveling by train will be higher than the cost of flying. As for freight trains, the idea is to serve as an alternative to the Suez Canal. It turns out that even here the cost of moving cargo through the "land bridge" will be more expensive than going through the canal, and in addition, the Egyptians will not be very happy about the competition that will be created and once again we have peace with the Egyptians. It is true that in light of what is happening around, the passage through the canal may not always be open and safe, but equally the security of the passage through the Gulf of Aden (the entrance to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eilat) is not guaranteed by Keft.

Let's remember that the last time the Suez Canal was closed (1956) Israel was used as a "land bridge", and then a pipeline was also laid to transport (Iranian) oil from Eilat to Ashkelon - Katsa, which today serves as the area of ​​the oil terminal in Eilat. In this area, along about 800 meters, a private beach was defined for Ktsa employees and associates... nice.

The train to Eilat and the airport are supposed to be integrated into the "southern gate": a combination of an airport, a railway and a seaport when there is an intention to move the seaport to the north by means of a canal about 20 km long. The canal will destroy all those areas that we managed to save from the airport, so what was the use of sages in fixing them.

The "Southern Gate" project will release a large part of Eilat's beaches to the public, and again as an Eilat I am happy. But again, why not cooperate with the neighbors and transfer the commercial port's activities to Aqaba? In the answer, the security argument comes up again. And a canal that will inevitably be on the border, is it safe? For entrepreneurs, mayors and ministers Magluman the solutions.

I have no doubt that each and every one of the ventures has extremely positive aspects, but perhaps with a little foresight, the environmental damage and the waste of resources could and will be prevented?

I have no doubt about the necessity of large and expensive development projects. I have a burning doubt in the ability of entrepreneurs and decision makers to learn from the past, to think and calculate the effects of ventures not only in terms of immediate profit or publicity, but also to try to anticipate the long-term effects.

The current discussion about the train to Eilat (I do not agree with the position of the Nature and Parks Authority) is, once again, a test of the ability of decision makers to see beyond the "end of their nose" in order to make correct decisions that will not, once again, cause crying for generations.

If in the past I ended with: "The time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment"!

After all, here it is appropriate to end with: "The time has come for entrepreneurs and decision-makers to remember that even many years after the end of a project, people will still want to live in an environment whose resources have not been fully utilized and without (megalomaniac) projects that become disturbing "white elephants".