Israel reduces Palestinian water supply to a trickle
Amnesty International yesterday published a damning report on Israel’s discriminatory water policies in the West Bank and Gaza. The report addresses what is one of the most under-reported yet vital issues in the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation and displacement; the appropriation of Palestinian resources for Israeli use.
Israel uses far more water per capita than any other country in the region (300 liters a day), but its freshwater resources are limited. Prior to 1967, its water was pumped from Lake Tiberias and the River Jordan, but the occupation of the West Bank gave the Zionist state a goldmine of water reserves. The forcible acquisition of this new territory meant that three large underground aquifers-the Western Aquifer, the Mountain Aquifer and the Eastern Aquifer- fell under Israeli control, and it wasted no time in limiting Palestinian access to them. For over forty years now, and fifteen years after the Oslo Accords, Israel has banned Palestinians from drilling a single aquifer well in the West Bank.
Israel also made sure to assert permanent control on the land above these three aquifers; the Eastern Aquifer lies in the Jordan Valley, which has been virtually annexed by Israel and in which Palestinian development is barred. The Mountain Aquifer, the largest in Palestine, runs under the area on which the huge Ariel settlement is constructed. As part of his ‘convergence’ plan, Ehud Olmert sought to extend Israel’s official borders around Ariel, which lies deep in the north central West Bank. Finally, the Western Aquifer lies to the west of the apartheid wall; that area is also virtually annexed to Israel now.
To that end, the consumption of water by Palestinians in the West Bank is at about 70 liters a day per capita, which is less than the 100 liters per day mandated by the World Health Organization as the minimum amount for healthy living. Over 200,000 Palestinians in the West Bank are not connected to the water grid, and have to buy their water from tankers. The disparity is alarming-frequently, Israeli settlements in the West Bank-illegal under international law- sit with their sprinklers, lush lawns and full swimming pools amidst parched Palestinian farmland. In fact, Amnesty charges that the illegal settlers use more water than the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank. Farmers in what the Oslo Accords deemed ‘Area C’, are not even allowed to help themselves. Palestinian construction in these areas is banned by the Israeli military authorities; this extends even to water cisterns, which are frequently destroyed by the Israeli army as this farmer experienced.
In Gaza, the situation is expectedly worse. The besieged strip sits atop the Coastal Aquifer, but up 90-95% of its water is unfit for human consumption. Additionally, the contamination levels in Gaza’s drinking water are dangerously high. The siege, which is now in its third year, has meant that Palestinian in Gaza have been unable to import the urgently needed materials needed to improve the water infrastructure in the territory. Two years ago a huge sewage collection plant in northern Gaza burst and flooded a large area, completely burying one village and killing several people.
Back in the West Bank, the water that Palestinians do receive is the share given to them by Israel of their own resources (Israel keeps 80% of the output of the Mountain Aquifer for itself, for example). However, receive is probably the wrong term; Palestinians pay Israel for the right to use their own water. And even though Israelis (particularly the settlers) use four times as much (Palestinian) water as Palestinians, the cost to Palestinians is four times as much as it is to Israelis.
Undoubtedly, the root cause of this oppression is the Israeli occupation. However, the PLO and Palestinian Authority deserve a lot of criticism for their handling of this issue. The Oslo Accords not only deemed large parts of the West Bank (particularly the land on top of the aquifers) as ‘Area C’ and under full Israeli control, but they also featured an agreement on how much of their own water Israel was to supply (sell) to the Palestinians. Defenders of Oslo may point out that the treaty and the terms it stipulated were only meant to last five years until independence, but the fact that the PLO failed to insert any guarantee mechanisms in the agreement (a basic element of international pacts) has led to the situation we have today, 15 years on. Engaging Israel on its own terms has left the PA and its institutions paralyzed on almost every issue concerning the humanitarian and political rights of Palestinians, including the disgraceful appropriation of Palestinian water sources.
I heard they also put a siege on spices entering Gaza . . . no Za'atar for some folks, I guess and that's the real shame!
Seriously though, what are we coming to?
May 1993's edition of National Geographic is particularlky good at highlighting Water Resources of the Middle East (goes into pretty comprehensive details about the Sea of Galilee, Israeli pools, Palestinian water resources and the aquifers in Palestine)
I've been thinking about the next war to errupt in the region. I'm convinced it's going to be a Water War . . . it's going to be to the death
You are not alone in thinking Israel's wars are for water. The Zionists have had their eyes on the Litani River in South Lebanon from early on in the Zionist project, and there have been a number of proposals to divert the river into Israeli territory. The religious whackos consider all of Lebanon south of the Litani to belong to Israel by divine right. Israel's repeated aggressions against Lebanon are really an attempt to annex South Lebanon and ethnically cleanse its residents just as they are doing in the West Bank. Unfortunately for Israel, Hezbollah has proven a formidable opponent and defeated Israel's latest attempt to conquer South Lebanon and seize the Litani.
http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.ht...
As the author here astutely notes, the leaflets dropped over Lebanon during the last war make clear Israel's intention to induce "voluntary transfer," as Ariel Sharon would say, north of the Litani:
"To all citizens south of the Litani River
Due to the terror activities being carried out against the State of Israel from within your villages and homes, the IDF is forced to respond immediately against these activities, even within your villages. For your safety! We call upon you to evacuate your villages and move north of the Litani River."
You are not alone in thinking Israel's wars are for water. The Zionists have had their eyes on…
Not a big fan of history I guess? Let me guess… you got a C? Or did you not even bother with the history classes?
I'll give you a little hint. Look into the 1967 "six day" war and the events that led up to it. Specifically, events in 1964. I think you'll find that was a war over water, and it wasn't the Israelis who were trying to cut off the water supplies of Arabs, but the exact opposite.
You might want to recheck the history yourself, Einstein. I know you're an "A" student ("A" for Asshole) but even you can pull your head out of Israel's ass long enough to check the facts, which are that Israel began a project to divert water from the Jordanian River for its own use prior to any action by the Arabs. It was only in response to Israel's project that the Arab league devised a plan to do the same. It would not have "cut off the water supplies" of Israel as you put it, but reduce the amount available to Israel. I see no reason to regard Israel's claim to the water as superior to anyone else's, particularly as the watersheds for the Jordan river and its tributaries were at the time overwhelmingly in Arab territory. Is Mexico entitled to greater access to the waters of the Colorado River than the US is?
As usual, Israel resolved the issue with military force by attacking the project, which was a blatant act of war.
It would not have "cut off the water supplies" of Israel as you put it, but reduce the amount available to Israel.
Which is exactly what this post is about only in regards to Palestinians, right? Einstein?
You might want to recheck the history yourself…
I'll make a note of that for the next time I have a brainfart and decide I want to follow the advice of somebody who has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to either form his own opinions or do even the most rudimentary of objective analysis.
It would not have "cut off the water supplies" of Israel as you put it, but reduce the amount available to Israel.
Which is exactly what this post is about only in regards to Palestinians, right? Einstein?
Try again, Ziobot. The post was about Israel stealing Palestinian water resources for their own use and denying the Palestinians even the bare minimum recommended by WHO for the maintenance of healthy living. So much for your alleged ability to "do even the most rudimentary of objective analysis" or form your own opinions.
Sean, I know this is an insensitive question, but have you ever had your reading comprehension tested?
Historical review of the political riparian issues in the development of the Jordan River and basin management
scroll down to section C.4
The Arabs started work on the Headwater Diversion project in 1965. Israel declared that it would regard such diversion as an infringement of its sovereign rights. According to estimates, completion of the project would have deprived Israel of 35% of its contemplated withdrawal from the upper Jordan, constituting one-ninth of Israel's annual water budget.
In a series of military strikes, Israel hit the diversion works. The attacks culminated in April 1967 in air strikes deep inside Syria. The increase in water-related Arab-Israeli hostility was a major factor leading to the June 1967 war.
For over forty years now, and fifteen years after the Oslo Accords, Israel has banned Palestinians from drilling a single aquifer well in the West Bank.
Mohammad, I read an article about this a few days ago on the BBC. The article claimed that Israelis had issued over 60 permits for drilling wells on the West Bank last year but only 20 something of them had been actually drilled. This article was on that amnesty report, and it (the article) was quite critical of Israel. And they are telling me that Palestinians got permits for 60+ wells last year alone. You tell me no permit has been issued in 40 years. Which is it?
What I said was that Palestinians are banned from drilling aquifer wells, i.e. wells large and deep enough to pump directly from the aquifer for mass use. Can you provide a link to the BBC article? Amnesty is not alone in commenting on the 40 year ban, but I do know that the EU in partcular sponsors small water infrastructure projects (upgrading pipes, etc), and I'm wondering if the BBC was referring to that.
Here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8327188.st...
I seem to have remembered the numbers wrong:
He also rejected the claim that Israel was preventing Palestinians from drilling for water, saying Israel had approved 82 such projects but the Palestinians had only implemented 26 of them.
As far as creating a new major water project, there are only 3 in the West Bank now right? I don't really have time to try to research this but I assume that if that would really solve the problem that nobody would have a problem with doing it. Unless you are really claiming that Israelis just want Palestinians to suffer for no reason?
Oops! That was supposed to go in as a reply to you, Mohammad.
The article states that permits for personal residential wells are nearly impossible to come by, and 82 residential permits for such a large population within a given year would be pitiful, though the Israelis cleverly describe what few permits they did give as "projects" as if we are talking about major community drilling projects here, and not residential wells. They frequently destroy Palestinian cisterns and barrels for catching rainwater. The rain belongs to Israel too, it would seem.
I read the article, Sean. I know what it says.
and you still support Israeli fascist to exist.
Israel must be destroyed!
Long Live Israel
I have no clue why bing sent me here but I can say I have been actually captivated by the comments you have sourced together. How many month did it take to get this many WWW users showing up to your website? I am new to this WWW thing.