Occupying Palestinian Water: The New Israeli/British Deal Threatens Gaza's Water Supply

[stockholmer]

There are few crimes more despicable than stealing your neighbour’s water, and polluting what’s left, then watching him and his children suffer thirst, disease and ruin. Most of us would want nothing to do with the perpetrators of such evil.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/23/occupying-palestinian-water/

British Water describes itself as the voice of the water industry. It talks about best practice and corporate responsibility, and lobbies governments and regulators on behalf of its members. No doubt it does a good job. It also has international ambitions including in the Middle East. So presumably it knows what’s going on water-wise in the Holy Land. British Water should know, for example, that the 400-mile long structure known worldwide as Israel’s Apartheid Wall bites deep into the Palestinian West Bank dividing and isolating communities and stealing their lands and water.

If the wall was simply for security, as Israel claims, it would have been built along the internationally-recognised 1949 Armistice Green Line, although not even this is an official border. The wall’s purpose is plainly to annex plum Palestinian land and water resources for illegal Israeli settlements, and to that end it closely follows the line of the Western Aquifer. In 2004 the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled that the construction of the wall is “contrary to international law” and Israel must dismantle it and make reparation for damage caused. The ICJ also ruled that “all states are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction”.

But the wall marches on, aided by American tax dollars and America’s protective veto, so that Israel can wield complete control over the water resources it sees as necessary to the regime’s present and future needs. This makes the Palestinians, who sit on top of enough water to be self-sufficient, entirely dependent on Israel for God’s life-giver. Israel also consumes most of the water from the Jordan River despite only three per cent of the river falling within its pre-1967 borders. Palestinians now have no access to it whatsoever due to Israeli closures.

Most of the Coastal Aquifer, on which Gaza’s inhabitants rely for water, is contaminated by sewage and nitrates, and is unfit for human consumption. Children particularly are at great risk. The aquifer is depleted and in danger of collapse. The damage could take generations to reverse, say experts. During Israel’s deadly assault on Gaza (Operation Cast Lead) in 2008-09 over 30km of water networks were damaged or destroyed in addition to 11 wells. A UN fact-finding mission (the Goldstone Report) considered the destruction “deliberate and systematic”. Proper repairs have been impossible these last three years because Israel blocks the import of spare parts.

snip

[DUIC]

1. Looks like much ado about nothing

British Water signs 'landmark' agreement with Israel

Water industry trade association British Water and Israeli research and development agency MATIMOP have signed a "landmark" water agreement.

As part of the Memorandum of Understanding signed on December 21, a framework enabling companies and research organisations from the two countries to work closely for domestic and international tenders and research projects has been set up. It is hoped this will lead to projects which will boost each country's economies.

It is also anticipated the agreement will facilitate greater joint projects to develop new product applications and processes to be commercialised in the global market, as many of the technologies designed in Israel begin to make headway in the international market.

According to British Water, the partnership also comes as a direct result of Israel's innovative approach to developing water technologies to help it better cope with water scarcity, which is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern, with figures from the United Nations suggesting that by 2030 almost half of the world's population will be living in areas of "high water stress".

https://www.thedrainagehub.co.uk/NewsDetail.aspx?UID=175e6790-7fa2-4b07-94d7-c301b1b9f8cb

In fact, it looks like both British Water and Israel are working in tandem to provide much needed water in this arid climate. Perhaps we should be more concerned about Syria. But, the freaks at counterpunch never miss an opportunity to condemn Israel.

[stockholmer]

2. The 'landmark deal' is exactly what my article discusses (you mistakenly draw inferences that it

will provide fair amounts of water to Gaza). It will be used for mostly Israel's benefit, and the Palestinians will suffer greatly. Here is a working link to the article you posted (you link does not work) : http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=21569&title=British+Water+signs+'landmark'+water+agreement+with+Israel+

It says nothing in regards to your assertions about Gaza. The French Government report below lays out plainly how and why this atrocity is occurring.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Op Ed: Water As A Tool For Continuing Oppression And Injustice

http://www.ewash.org/en/?view=79YOcy0nNs3Du69tjVnyyumIu1jfxPKNuunzXkRpKQN7Jpi8TTTG

When standing on a high point and looking out over the West Bank, it is not hard to identify Israeli settlements from Palestinian villages. The architecture is sometimes different, but the easiest way to distinguish between the two is just to look at the rooftops. Palestinian roofs all have water tanks to store the regular or irregular rainfall, since they are unable to connect to a water network. Settlers living beside these villages however have access to a modern water system and enjoy an unlimited supply of water. This article will explain parts of the sad, but true, Israeli strategy to disfavour and punish Palestinians.

Now, more than 60 years after the creation of the state of Israel, the prospect of peace is as far away as ever. One of the forgotten reasons for this is the subject of water provision. A French parliamentary report http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/rap-info/i4070.pdf published in January 2012 calls the Israeli allocation of water "a weapon serving the new apartheid". This was met with harsh criticism from the Israeli side. The comment made by Israel's foreign ministry in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was that this report is "a serious diplomatic mishap". Israel's Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria made an official response: "The harm is already done, since the words Israel and apartheid will appear together all over the world. And unfortunately, some will believe it."

Unsurprisingly, the opinions and views about this situation differ. Though it seems that the Palestinian Authority, the French parliamentary report, Israeli Human Rights organizations, Amnesty International, The Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ) and the United Nations (UN) mostly agree on their criticism of Israel. Despite the scientific proof and personal testimonies of the water apartheid, no real pressure is put on Israel to change.


snip

-----------------------

here is the relevant part of the French Report, translated to English:

Box No. 3: Water, evidence of a new apartheid in the Middle East

Apartheid, which was introduced by Prime Minister Daniel F. Malan in 1948, ensured the differentiated development of ethnic groups in South Africa for half a century. It was a policy involving both racial and spatial segregation (enclosure of black and “coloured” communities within confined areas known as bantustans) but also segregation of the country’s citizens, since the freedoms of one sector of the population were flouted (by restrictions on the right to freedom of movement and the right of assembly in public places, and exposure to violent police action). The odious apartheid regime in South Africa ended in the early 1990s with the release of Nelson Mandela and political prisoners, the courageous compromise reached between Mr. de Klerk and Mandela, and the first free elections in 1994, which resulted in a massive transfer of power to the African National Congress (ANC), Mandela’s party.

Of course, comparisons are not always accurate: Palestine is not South Africa, and the opening years of the current decade differ from those prior to 1990. However, there are words and symbols which, by virtue of their inherent force, may serve pedagogical aims.

It is thus crystal clear, despite the fact that those who dare to use the word are few and far between, that the Middle East is the scene of a new form of apartheid.

The segregation is racial but, since no one dares to say so, it is described chastely as “religious”. But can the demand for a “Jewish” state really be described as purely religious?

Segregation is also spatial, a fact best symbolised by the wall built to separate the two communities. It is further illustrated by the division of the West Bank into three zones: A, B and C.

The Israeli army has transferred responsibility for civil affairs, i.e. for the provision of community services, to the Palestinian Authority in zones A et B. These two zones, which contain almost 95% of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, represent only 40% of the territory. Zone C remains entirely under the authority of the Israeli army. It constitutes 60% of the territory of the West Bank, comprising land resources, access to aquifers and all the main highways.

The segregation is also haughty and contemptuous (“those people are irresponsible” … is an oft repeated mantra of some Israeli authorities), harassing and humiliating (the passage of checkpoints is rendered more stringent or more relaxed without warning) or even violent (the suppression of demonstrations regularly results in fatalities …).

Hence it definitely constitutes a “new apartheid”.

Water plays a special role in the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis; indeed it may be said to constitute the “5th component” of the Oslo Accords. The Oslo Declaration of 13 September 1993 recognises the Palestinians’ rights to water in the West Bank. The Taba Interim Agreement of 28 September 1995 provides for the sharing of water pending the signing of a permanent agreement. However, the sharing is incomplete: it is applicable only to the aquifers; the Jordan River is excluded, since the Palestinians no longer have access to it. Moreover, the Agreement freezes the previous usage situation and distributes only the quantity of water that remains available, i.e. 78 cubic metres of the Eastern Aquifer. It is therefore highly unfavourable to the Palestinians, who exploit only 18% of the aquifers, i.e. 10% of the water available within the territory.

It is therefore difficult to see how what has become a fully fledged “water conflict” can be resolved in the absence of a global political settlement.

What are the characteristics of this “water conflict”? In “hydrological” terms, it concerns primarily the River Jordan, which combines all the components that are likely to trigger a “water crisis”. Since the beginning of the conflict, from war to war, Israel’s “territorial expansion” has been comparable, whether one likes it or not, to “water conquests” encompassing both rivers and aquifers.

And the fact is that water in the Middle East has become more than a resource: it is now a weapon.

To understand the nature of this “weapon” serving the “new apartheid”, it should be noted, for example, that the 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians.

The multiple manifestations of this phenomenon also include the following:

•when a drought occurs, priority is given to settlers in breach of international law;

•the wall makes is possible to control access to underground water sources and prevents Palestinians from drawing water in the “buffer zone” in order to facilitate the flow of water westwards;

•the “wells” dug spontaneously by Palestinians in the West Bank are systematically destroyed by the Israeli army;
•in Gaza water reservoirs were targeted by Israeli bombs in 2008-2009;

•and as zones A and B do not constitute a single whole but are broken up into enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements, by roads reserved for settlers and by zone C, this state of affairs impedes the development of effective infrastructure for a reliable water supply and for the discharge of wastewater. Most Palestinians live in zones A and B, but the infrastructure on which they depend is located in or crosses through zone C. The movement of Palestinians within zone C is restricted or prohibited; the Israeli army rarely authorises construction or other development work. Several examples may be cited of water purification facilities planned by the Palestinian Water Ministry and “blocked” by the Israeli administration.

The Israelis blame the Palestinians for the existence of uncontrolled wells that are responsible for excessive pumping and aquifer salinisation. They mention Gaza as an example, since the aquifer there is gradually being lost. They also complain about the lack of water treatment. Only 31% of Palestinians are connected to the system. But the Committee has approved only 50% of Palestinian projects, with enormous delays, and such authorisation must then be followed by administrative authorisation for zone C. The appropriation of resources by the settlements and by the route of the wall is another negative factor. The fact that the aquifers are overexploited is beyond doubt.

The Israelis invoke the theory of prior appropriation in support of their rights and are totally opposed to joint water management, adopting a security-based approach. Israel proposes solutions, some of which have interesting dimensions, but it reserves water resource control for itself. The mission gained the impression that the country would prefer to abandon the aquifers, ceasing to develop desalination procedures, than to lay the basis for shared management. There will be no water sharing without a political settlement to the issue of land sharing.

Yet a Joint Water Committee was established by the Oslo II Accords. Its competence with respect to all water-related issues relates only to Palestinians in the territory of the West Bank. Hence it is not a shared management body, still less one providing for a shared basin. Furthermore, it operates on the basis of consensus, which gives de facto veto power to Israel.


snip