Artificial Island Proposal for Gaza

During the European Union Foreign Ministers’ meeting on Jan. 22, the Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz presented a video discussing the creation of an artificial island off the coast of Gaza to serve as a maritime port and potentially an airport for the strip in the future. 

Even if this proposal was found “very interesting” by the EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell, it was also regarded as off-topic amidst the current war in the Gaza Strip. In fact, Katz was recommended to focus more on the security concerns in the region instead of suggesting a proposal which has been mentioned on several occasions since 2011. 

Many skeptics regarded this artificial island as an indirect response to the question on the future of the Gaza Strip. Due to its timing, many perceived the proposal as a suggestion to relocate the Palestinians living in Gaza to the island in the long term in order to eliminate Hamas or to annex the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, the Israeli Foreign Ministry denied that Katz made any claim of relocation of Gaza’s population in his defense and insisted that the plan was only a commercial vision for the Strip. 

What is the Proposal Really About? 

In its essence, the project is an alternative proposal to building a coastal port in the Gaza Strip. Since Gaza is a coastal region surrounded by Israel to the East, a method of achieving economic development through trade would be to build a maritime port. Given that there exists no secure connection to the West Bank, and thus the Arab world, and a limited crossing in Rafah connecting to the Sinai Peninsula, the path towards integrating Gaza into the global economy is to look to the Mediterranean Sea as most civilizations of this region have done historically.

Based on the security concerns presented by Hamas, Israel suggests that the port be controlled by an international force inland while the Israeli navy takes responsibility for securing the maritime borders. Even if little information has been disclosed regarding the matter, the main idea is to build an island port for Gaza in an endeavor to prevent a coastal port, which Hamas might utilize to strengthen its armament. 

In the video presented by Katz, some commercial installations were also displayed, alongside a potential airport lane, which might replace the Gaza airport that Israel destroyed earlier this century. 

What are the Potential Complications? 

Many Israeli ministers, headed by the main proposer, Israel Katz, have been complimenting the idea, claiming that it would bring an infrastructural tool for the economic development of Gaza without threatening Israel’s security. However, skeptics have not been silent on the matter every time the proposal resurfaces. 

Most evidently, the main predicament behind the proposition is the sovereignty question: can a Palestinian state be created if Palestinian authorities do not cement their control over their main economic infrastructure? Not only so, but others even go as far as saying that the maritime control by Israeli forces, as well as inland control by international ones, will legitimize the Israeli blockade of Gaza, not to ignore in this situation Israel’s historical tactics in breaching sovereignty through claims on security. In this situation, it would be unsurprising that Israel pressures the future Gazan authorities by blocking maritime trade for security concerns. Also, despite some calling for a cooperation between international forces and the Palestinian authorities inland, it is not even known who are the proposed ‘legitimate’ authorities, especially after current events. 

Regarding the costs of the port, which are projected to reach $5 billion dollars, it is unclear who will cover them. If the future Gaza authority is held responsible for the charges, then it is doubtful that such an authority will be able to fund an artificial seaport and rebuild the demolished strip. Other reports in years past hinted that China and Saudi Arabia are willing to build and fund the project. However, considering the unstable geopolitical situation of the region, and in parallel with the detrimental invasion, it would be unlikely for the Chinese to invest in the Gaza strip. As to the Saudis, as long as an Iranian proxy exists, they will not invest in the region, considering the case of Lebanon with Hezbollah. Moreover, Israel will have a role in the investment, yet not only might Palestinian authorities reject it to avoid public discontent and political dependency, but also the Israeli public will be reluctant, especially after the Oct. 7 attacks. On the other hand, Israeli authorities, depending who reaches power at that time, might regard such an investment as a way to correct Israel’s public image in the international media.  

Environmentally, there will inevitably be negative consequences; however, no prominent studies have been conducted on whether a coastal seaport will be more environmentally friendly or not. 

Reality of the Current State? 

In the current state of war, with more than 90 percent of the Gaza population staying around the Rafah crossing in the south, it is expected that allegations regarding the relocation of Gazans on to the proposed island would surface. Realistically, however, three points can be made: first, it would be cheaper for Israel and the U.S. to pressure Egypt, as well as Gulf countries, to host the 1.8 million refugees than to build a costly island. Furthermore, building an artificial island requires years to be finalized: if Israel lacks something, it is time, especially with the rising death toll of Israel Defense Force soldiers as well as public anger. Finally, it is unlikely that Israeli allies will accept the relocation due to potential infringement of further human rights, which will arouse the already incessant fury amongst pro-Palestine manifestations in Western communities.

It is important to note that when Katz displayed the video, it was also followed with another video that proposes a trade route connecting India to the Middle East. As readers were shocked with the timing chosen to revive the island seaport proposal, many overlooked the second proposal, thus little information has surfaced around it. Yet, the second video most probably refers to the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) trade route proposed in September, prior to the Oct. 7 attacks. This trade route which would connect India to Europe through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, thus bypassing the Suez Canal, throws doubt on the economic efficiency of an Island in Gaza. Putting into perspective, the already pre-constrained island would be competing with an international trade route a few kilometers away; in other words, even if the seaport provides integration for Gaza into the globalized world, the competition will demolish potential long-term investments, possibly leaving the future Palestinian authorities in huge debt. Clearly, no trade route through the island can be made into the region without passing through Israel, so IMEC will be more favourable for traders. 

A Political Message? 

Finally, the timing of the videos, amidst International Court of Justice trials on genocide allegations, reflects an indirect message to Hamas and the world: Israel has won the war against Hamas and it will do as it sees appropriate with the Gaza Strip in the future. Moreover, both videos can also be a political pressure to Egypt to accommodate the refugees or else face the crippling economic effect of a cheaper alternative to the Suez Canal.