The Oasis Plan for Peace in the Mideast

Conflict has been a constant in the Middle East since Cain bashed Abel outside Eden. Around 2270 B.C., the Akkadians (in modern day Iraq) fielded history’s first professional army for more fratricide, this time against their cultural brothers, the Sumerians in Uruk. Around 1550 B.C., the Hebrews besieged the Canaanite city of Jericho, slaying every inhabitant after the city’s fortifications crumbled. The Kingdom of Judah’s capital of Jerusalem was besieged twice, first in 587 B.C. by the Babylonians, and later in 70 A.D. by the Romans. Both sieges resulted in widespread enslavement, exile and genocide.

The Middle East’s current headlines continue to be dominated by conflict and bloodlust. For the last two years, Israel has been at war with Hamas in Gaza, and the conflict only appears to worsen as reports surface of mounting civilian casualties, infrastructural obliteration and permanent Gazan displacement. Nine months ago, Syria emerged from thirteen years of bloody civil war, only to suffer immediately hundreds of airstrikes from its neighbor Israel. Seemingly Israel seeks security, stability and prosperity for its citizenry by depriving its neighbors of the same. Within the present paradigm, Israel may be correct that its neighbor’s detriment redounds to Israel’s benefit and vice-versa, but this zero-sum game is not obligatory. There is another way.

There is a plan which will restore security, stability and prosperity to Israel and its neighbors beyond anything experienced by the region. The plan will in effect intertwine Middle Eastern countries’ fortunes together such that conflict will be more detrimental than beneficial. Given the stream of death and destruction witnessed lately in the Middle East’s multiple conflicts (i.e., Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc.), there is every reason to deliberate this plan with an open mind.

In this septempartite series, the first installment covers the Oasis Plan’s objectives and challenges. The second through sixth installments cover the pertinent regional history so that readers have some context about the decisions now facing the Middle East’s statesmen, and the seventh installment covers the Oasis Plan’s financing and mechanics. Currently the aim is to publish each installment two or three days apart. If you are already up to date about the regional history and prefer to skip the primer in favor of the conclusion at Part Seven, please feel free.

Lyndon LaRouche’s Oasis Plan

The plan was devised and proposed by Lyndon LaRouche in 1994 and is called the Oasis Plan. Details have since been updated to account for modern developments, but overall the plan is much the same. LaRouche (1922 – 2019) was a geopolitical philosopher and economist who spent his life studying humanity through the lenses of history, science and culture. What matters most for our purposes is that against the intensifying conflagration which is the modern Middle East, LaRouche is the only person handing us a fire hose!

As the Oasis Plan will soon reveal, LaRouche was no Libertarian, so much of the Plan relies on state actors. There may be some details which can be handled by private entities or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but for the most part, the Plan conceives of national governments reaching agreements, then implementing them within their respective countries. Though ideological purists in my readership may disapprove of such implementation by “coercion,” they should consider the alternative, which is countries coercing each other through warfare based on disagreements. When irreplaceable human life hangs in the balance, purism takes a back seat to practicality.

On a similar note, LaRouche’s distinction from Libertarianism is worth emphasizing because typically our philosophy is about downscaling government or otherwise divesting government of untoward power. We want government to be doing nothing more than the barest necessities. The Libertarian perspective generally serves us well because government tends to be both ineffective and inefficient at achieving desirable outcomes in society. That said, the Libertarian preference for governmental inaction must be examined against the present alternative. The Oasis Plan will cost a staggering amount of money, measured in billions of dollars, but doing nothing will cost us many more billions. This we already know because currently the USA makes exorbitant outlays just to maintain the Middle East’s status quo, which has done nothing but rapidly degenerate through the years.

The Oasis Plan in Broad Strokes

Aridity is the Middle East’s defining characteristic in terms of its geography. Human life and flourishing anywhere requires fresh water, and in the Middle East, fresh water’s scarcity severely limits population distension and agriculture. For this reason, fluvial shorelines have been hotly contested realty, such as Bagdad in Iraq along the Tigris, Deir ez-Zor in Syria along the Euphrates, and the Jordan River’s West Bank serving as the crucible for much of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. As for the Middle East’s coastlines, modern desalination plants have made greater population densities possible along the coastlines in places like Ashkelon and Kuwait City, so that humanity can convert salt water into water which is safe for bathing and irrigation, if not drinking. The Oasis Plan therefore seeks to widen access to fresh water.

This will be accomplished by way of digging two new canals. One will connect the Red Sea to the Dead Sea, and the other will connect the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean through Gaza. These canals will not be for transportation or shipping, only irrigation, and they will channel vast quantities of water to sustain population and agriculture for generations.

The Dead Sea presents a unique challenge and opportunity for this project. The challenge stems from the Dead Sea’s salinity (~34%) since it is the world’s saltiest body of water, about ten times saltier than the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This will require the construction of desalination facilities around the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea’s unique opportunity stems from its elevation, which is the world’s lowest at 1400 feet (430 meters) below sea level. This means that the canal from the Red Sea can harness hydroelectricity as the channelled water cascades into the Dead Sea. The hydroelectricity will power the desalination facilities, with any shortfalls covered by nuclear power plants.

The nuclear power plants will be the inherently safer new generation, such as the pebble-bed reactor recently pioneered in Shidao Bay, China. They could even be the molten salt reactors which use thorium for fission as advocated by Dr. Kirk Sorensen. Thorium is more abundant than uranium, so input costs will be much lower. Both designs offer the upside of exponential output of sustainable energy, without the hazard of meltdowns as experienced in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Dr. Vincenzo Romanello estimates that twenty-five (25) nuclear power plants will be needed to drive the new desalination facilities. (at time stamp 10:56)

The Oasis Plan will also capitalize on the Middle East’s location at the intersection between the three continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. Continuing China’s Belt and Road Initiative from 2013, a network of highways and railways will connect the Middle East’s countries. This will allow for the bidirectional transportation of passengers and freight.

In summary, the Oasis Plan will allow the Middle East’s countries – which are and have been in conflict with each other and within themselves – to combine their interests. They will fight against the common enemy of aridity, whilst bringing commerce and wealth to the region on a scale hitherto unseen. A project of this magnitude will require the region to share the resources of capital, labor and expertise, such that disruption to these inputs will jeopardize the project and thus the Middle East’s future.

The Oasis Plan’s Biggest Costs

The Oasis Plan necessitates the creation of the State of Palestine to coexist with Israel. Given the century of bad blood between Israel and Palestine, this is a high cost, yet it is the only way to achieve security, stability and prosperity in the Middle East.

As we approach the second anniversary of Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7th, 2023, which was a regional game-changer, honest reflection reveals that Israeli-Palestinian relations were no rosier on October 6th. This is why one of the scarcest resources needed – and thus the biggest cost – for the Oasis Plan’s successful implementation may be good faith.

Correlated to good faith is the resource of time. Of course the Oasis Plan will require time as for digging the canals, constructing the desalination facilities, nuclear plants, highways and railways. But in this sense, time refers to survival itself. The clock ticks against Palestine and Israel, though in different ways. For Palestine, if Israel continues its relentless campaign against Hamas – which coincidentally has obliterated the northern half of Gaza and now proceeds southwards -- there will be nothing left of the dwellings and people. Palestinians on the West Bank staring at the Security Barrier which fences them out of their own country and suffering the Hilltop Youth’s depredations which Israeli authorities rarely investigate much less punish – know that their turn will come soon enough. Hence, time for Palestine refers to survival in the literal sense.

For Israel, the clock ticks against diplomacy. Not that long ago, Israel enjoyed strong support throughout the world. In the Holocaust’s wake, most humanity realized that Jewry should have a homeland, and that it should roughly correspond to the Israel of history and the Bible. The world duly marveled at the society which Israel had created in the inhospitable desert, a prosperously modern society which promoted education, culture, ecology, egalitarianism and democracy. In recent years, the world looks less favorably on Israel, as it appears Israel bullies its neighbors whilst playing the stale Holocaust card to justify its actions to the media. As the clock now ticks, before long a time will come when no amount of shekels will buy friends in journalism and politics (presuming Israel stays its current course). At that point, doors will close to Israel, and though it will march onwards alone, future generations in Israel will progressively enjoy less prosperity and safety than their parents had.

That is an undesirable outcome. Israel represents a unique experience of humanity, and Israel’s existence enriches us all on many levels. Yet the same is true about Palestine. Israel has every right to exist, but it cannot foreclose its neighbor’s coequal right to existence. This is why there needs to be a Palestinian state to coexist in peace and commerce alongside Israel.