Jump to content
The Education Forum
Mike Regan

The "Heart" Of Middle East Turmoil

Recommended Posts

Israel's Appropriation of Arab Water: An Obstacle to Peace

by Ronald Bleier

"There is no reason for Palestinians to claim that just because they sit on lands, they have the rights to that water," Mr. Katz-Oz [israel's negotiator on water] said. "The mountains do not own the water that fall on them. It's the same with Canada and the United States. It's the same all over the world." -- NYT 10/93

On the whole, when it comes to the common water resources shared with Palestinians and other Arabs, Israel ... acts like a great sponge. -- Sharif Elmusa (1993)

Palestinian hopes for genuine self-determination hinge on a number of factors, not the least of which is Israel's ability to solve its perennial and growing water shortage. According to Dr. Hussein A. Amery, of the Department of Geography, Bishop's University, Quebec, Israel uses 17% more than the 1.9 billion cubic meters of water that is renewable from natural sources.

"The deficit in water supply is being met by desalinating brackish salty waters, recycling waste water and over- pumping underground waters." ("Israel's designs on Lebanese water," MEI, 10 September 93 [No. 458] p. 18.)

But these facts and figures don't address the question of equity. Arguably 50% or more of the water that Israel uses is unilaterally appropriated from water that should fairly go to its Arab neighbors. Even the New York Times used the word "theft" when quoting an "Arab" in connection with Israel's appropriation of regional water resources. ("Hurdle to Peace: Parting the Mideast's Waters" by Alan Cowell NYT, 10.10.93 p. 1)

As a settler community, the Jewish state has historically taken for itself land and resources belonging to its Arab inhabitants and the neighboring Arab countries. A clear example of Israel's appropriation of the water belonging to Arabs is Israel's interest early on in diverting the waters of the Jordan River from the Jordan Valley to the Mediterranean and to the Negev.

Accordingly, in 1951, contrary to the armistice agreements and over the protests of U.S. and U.N. officials, the Israelis began moving military units and bulldozers into the demilitarized zone on the Syrian border. Spurred by hostilities in the area over water, in 1953, the Eisenhower Administration prepared a unified plan for the use of the Jordan River. In September 1953, Israel, in an apparent attempt to preempt the American plan, secretly began a crash program to construct a nine-mile long pipeline in the demilitarized zone to divert Jordan River waters.

When the Americans learned of Israel's activities which included around the clock work crews, they protested and President Eisenhower went so far as to suspend vital economic aid to Israel. No announcement about the aid suspension was made at the time, perhaps to keep from drawing the ire of the Zionist lobby at home.

However, soon afterward, the Israelis launched an unrelated attack on a West Bank Jordanian village, killing 53 people which came to be known as the Kibya massacre. As a result of the ensuing furor, on October 18, 1953, the Eisenhower administration made public its cutoff of aid to Israel. Eleven days later, under the pressure from the U.S. Zionist lobby and a pledge by Israel to suspend work on the diversion project, U.S. aid was resumed. (Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel, by Stephen Green, William Morrow and Co., N.Y. 1984. "The 1953 Aid Cutoff: A Parable for Our Times," pp. 76- 93.)

Israeli work on diverting the water of the Jordan River was only temporarily suspended -- perhaps for as long as two years. By 1960, however, the diversion project -- which came to be known as the National Water Carrier -- was complete and in fact was the target of the PLO's first (and unsuccessful) attack in 1964.

Jordan and Syria strongly protested Israel's unilateral appropriation of their water because Israel's diversion made local agricultural activity impossible.

Before the Israeli diversion, the U.S. plan apportioned 33% of Jordan River water for Israel's use. As Stephen Green points out, the significance of this figure is that only 23% of the flow of the Jordan River originates in Israel. The Israelis, however, wanted more than 33%. Today, Israel takes virtually all of the Jordan River flow leaving only brackish, unusable water for the Syrians and Jordanians. Moreover, Israel's diversion of the Jordan River water to the Mediterranean littoral and to the Negev, defies an important principle of international law regarding water use; namely that water should not be diverted from its catchment basin.

THE 1967 WAR

The '67 war was preceded by hostilities between the Syrians and the Israelis over Israel's violations of armistice agreements regarding the demilitarized zone between Israel and Syria. Israeli encroachments on agricultural lands and raids on villages in the area forced hundreds of Arabs to flee their homes and in turn resulted in the Arab shelling from the Golan Heights which Israel used as an excuse to attack and conquer the area in the Six Day war. (See Laura Drake, "The Golan Belongs to Syria" MEI, 11 September 1992, pp. 24-25.) The Israeli plan to conquer the Golan Heights appears to be the reason that Israeli jets and torpedo boats attacked the American spy ship, the USS Liberty, a day before the assault on the Golan Heights. Apparently the Israelis didn't want the Americans monitoring their assault on the Golan while Syria had agreed to a cease fire. The Israeli strike resulted in the deaths of 34 American sailors and a cover-up by both governments of Israel's surprise attack on the defenseless ship.

When Israel conquered the Golan Heights, they captured the headwaters of the Jordan and thus secured for themselves the greatest part of the flow of the Jordan River. Israel captured the final portion of the Jordan River flow in their 1982 invasion of Lebanon when they included as part of their self-declared "security zone" the Hasbani and Wazzani Rivers which arise in Lebanon and flow into the Jordan.

THE WEST BANK AND GAZA

Ever since the Israelis captured the West Bank and Gaza in the Six-Day War in 1967, they have strictly controlled the water resources in the territories largely because they have become so dependent on Palestinian water emanating from underground aquifers on the West Bank.

West Bank water not only makes up 30% of the water in Tel Aviv households but also is critical to preserving the pressure balance which keeps the salt water of the Mediterranean from invading the coastal aquifers.

Israel has permitted no new drilling of agricultural wells for water for the Palestinians in the territories and has permitted fewer than a dozen for domestic use. Moreover, the Israelis charge the Palestinians fees that are three times higher than they charge Israelis for water for domestic use (with even higher relative charges in Gaza).

As Sharif Elmusa points out: "n terms of relative GNP per capita, Palestinians pay a minimum of fifteen times more than Israeli consumers -- a phenomenal difference for water systems managed by the same company." ("Dividing the Common Palestinian-Israeli Waters: An International Water Law Approach" in Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1993, No. 87, p. 63. See also note 11, p. 74.)

West Bank water is so critical to Israeli water usage that it is difficult to imagine the Israeli government making even minor concessions on water issues in upcoming negotiations with the Palestinians.

Indeed, according to press reports, the present public negotiating position of the Israelis is to ignore Palestinian claims to the water of the West Bank and Gaza to "negotiate" instead over new water sources, presumably through desalinization techniques. Needless to say, Palestinians will have difficulty accepting Israel's negotiating policy on water.

The water shortage in Gaza is even more critical than it is on the West Bank. Experts predict that before the year 2000, under current use, the Gaza aquifer will be so depleted that salt water from the Mediterranean will make it unusable.

Even in Gaza where the Arab population outnumbers the approximately 5,000 Jewish settlers by more than 170 to 1, the Israeli government appropriates 10-25% of Gaza water for Jews. (see Elmusa, pp. 61)

THE WATERS OF LEBANON

Zionist interest in the waters of Lebanon goes back as least as far as the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 when Chaim Wietzman wrote to the British Prime Minister explaining that because of its water requirements, a Jewish homeland in Palestine must include the Litani River.

In the 50's, Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett recorded in his diaries that Moshe Dayan's plan for the control of the Litani River was to "'enter Lebanon, occupy the relevant territory' then the 'territory south of the Litani will be annexed to Israel and everything will fall into place.'" (Quoted in Amery, pp. 18-19)

IS ISRAEL TAKING LEBANON'S WATER?

Since its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 there have been innumerable rumors and many unsubstantiated reports that Israel has been taking more or less water from the Litani River. Since Israel doesn't allow outside observers to the Litani area or to its self-proclaimed "security zone" these rumors and reports have been impossible to verify.

However, after the 1982 invasion Israel prohibited the sinking of new wells just as they did on the West Bank. They also "seized all the hydrographic charts and technical documents about the Litani and its hydro-electric installations, and carried out seismic soundings and surveys near the Litani's western bend, most likely to determine the optimum place for a diversion tunnel." (Amery, p. 19)

So far Professor Amery is alone in pointing to the "hydrological" aspect of the barbarous Israeli barrage of Lebanon during the last week of July 1993 where the express purpose was to create hundreds of thousands of refugees and make much of the area uninhabitable.

Amery's analysis suggests that Israel's interest in Lebanon is -- along with its political goals -- to maintain and/or establish control over as much of Lebanese water as possible. Amery notes that since 1985 former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon has been calling for an enlarged "security zone" in Lebanon that stretches to the Awali River (north of the Litani).

Amery quotes a Lebanese newspaper that agues that a larger security zone was already in process of "being established by depopulating and flattening 30 ... villages that border the zone" (p. 19). Longer term, the demographic issue is bound to have a major impact on the politics of water use. The population of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and Jordan today is approximately 10 million. Current forecasts are that by 2020 the population of the same area will double to 20 million with no prospect of any significant increase in water supplies. Without a peaceful resolution of land and water issues, instability and possibly more war loom as awful prospects.

Despite or because of the September 1993 Oslo Accords, it is clearly even more urgent to ask if there is any means to convince Israel to reverse its policy of unilaterally taking for itself the legitimate Arab share of the area's water.

THE END

Edited by Mike Regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike,

And I thought the middle east was all about oil.

Maybe we can sell water to the Arabs for $5 a gallon?

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's One For Ya', Bill

With The Simple Fact Being That, Much Like England Did In The Early To Mid 18TH Century, Israel Is Now Running The Show Here In The Good 'Ole United States, It Appears Very, Very Appropriate To Strongly Suggest That We Begin To Wake Up...

They Have Corrupted Our Politicians, Destroyed Careers And Lives Of Those Americans Who Chose To Oppose Israel, Dictate Both Our Domestic And Foreign Policies To Our Intimidated Officials, Instigated Conflict (Beginning With Their "Unprovoked" Attack On Their Arab Neighbors In 1967) And Continue To Undermine The Very "Christian" (As Were Each And Every One Of The 56 Signers Of The Declaration Of Independence) Fabric Upon Which This Country Began And Stood...

Israel, Through It's Agents In Both The Media And Entertainment Industry, Continue In Their Attempts To Undermine And Disrupt Our Christian Values, Our Fine Law Enforcement Agencies, Instigate Racial Strife And, Most Damaging, Have Spent Decades Corrupting That Wonderful Unit That, Simply Put, Played The Pivotal Role In Building This Fine Nation... "The American Family"

Also Seems Appropriate That We All Take A Moment To Read The Enclosed (Below) And Gather A True Sense Of The Sacrifices Made By Our Forefathers, Their Wives And Families And To Grasp And Understand The Full Significance Of Their Suffering...

Catch ya' later,

Mike

_________________________________________________________________________

THE 4TH OF JULY

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding.

His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday to silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!

I hope you will show your support by sending this to as many people as you can, please.

It's time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball games.

____________________________________________________

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the

Declaration of Independence

Religious Affiliation # of

signers % of

signers

Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%

Congregationalist 13 23.2%

Presbyterian 12 21.4%

Quaker 2 3.6%

Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%

Catholic 1 1.8%

TOTAL 56 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation

Charles Carroll, Maryland Catholic

Samuel Huntington, Connecticut Congregationalist

Roger Sherman, Connecticut Congregationalist

William Williams, Connecticut Congregationalist

Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Congregationalist

Lyman Hall, Georgia Congregationalist

Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Congregationalist

John Hancock, Massachusetts Congregationalist

Josiah Bartlett, New Hampshire Congregationalist

William Whipple, New Hampshire Congregationalist

William Ellery, Rhode Island Congregationalist

John Adams, Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian

Robert Treat Paine, Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian

George Walton, Georgia Episcopalian

John Penn North Carolina, Episcopalian

George Ross, Pennsylvania Episcopalian

Thomas Heyward Jr., South Carolina Episcopalian

Thomas Lynch Jr., South Carolina Episcopalian

Arthur Middleton South Carolina, Episcopalian

Edward Rutledge, South Carolina Episcopalian

Francis Lightfoot Lee, Virginia Episcopalian

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia Episcopalian

George Read, Delaware Episcopalian

Caesar Rodney, Delaware Episcopalian

Samuel Chase, Maryland Episcopalian

William Paca, Maryland Episcopalian

Thomas Stone, Maryland Episcopalian

Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts Episcopalian

Francis Hopkinson, New Jersey Episcopalian

Francis Lewis, New York Episcopalian

Lewis Morris, New York Episcopalian

William Hooper, North Carolina Episcopalian

Robert Morris, Pennsylvania Episcopalian

John Morton, Pennsylvania Episcopalian

Stephen Hopkins, Rhode Island Episcopalian

Carter Braxton, Virginia Episcopalian

Benjamin Harrison, Virginia Episcopalian

Thomas Nelson Jr., Virginia Episcopalian

George Wythe, Virginia Episcopalian

Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)

Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)

Button Gwinnett, Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian

Joseph Hewes, North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian

George Clymer, Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian

Thomas McKean, Delaware Presbyterian

Matthew Thornton, New Hampshire Presbyterian

Abraham Clark, New Jersey Presbyterian

John Hart New, Jersey Presbyterian

Richard Stockton, New Jersey Presbyterian

John Witherspoon, New Jersey Presbyterian

William Floyd, New York Presbyterian

Philip Livingston, New York Presbyterian

James Smith, Pennsylvania Presbyterian

George Taylor, Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Benjamin Rush, Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Edited by Mike Regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that Mike.

No Roman Catholics or Jews signed the Declaration of Independence?

If the Jews had taken over like you say, "running the show," we wouldn't be in this economic mess.

As for those who signed the DI, Richard Stockton of New Jersey, for whom Stockton College is named after, was captured by the British, his home burned, and he was imprisoned on a ship in New York harbor for most of the war.

I guess that's what they meant when they said they pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's Right, Bill, No Jews Signed The Declaration Of Independence...

You Might, Though, Do A Bit Of Research On A Roman Catholic Signer Named Charles Carroll.

And A Family Member, Daniel Carroll, Would, In 1893, Donate The Land Upon Which Our Capitol Stands.

Another Family Member, John Carroll, Would Become The Nation's First Roman Catholic Bishop.

The Carroll Family Was, Perhaps, The Wealthiest Of The Era And Supported The American Revolution Immensely.

And Stood To Lose The Most, Including Their Lives...

Though A Bit Off Topic, Thought I'd Add That James Hoban, A Roman Catholic, Designed

The White House... After The Irish House Of Parliament In Dublin, Ireland...

Not Even Going To Debate You, Bill, On Israel's Negative Influence On Both The United States And The

Middle East (Which Has Direct Bearing On The Shambles The American Economy Is Now In)...

Spelled It All Out For Ya' On A Previous Topic And, Of Course, On Two Posts Within This One.

And Please Note That My Emphasis Has Been On "Israel". Not On The Vast, Vast Majority Of Our Fine Populace

Of Jewish Americans...

Mike

Edited by Mike Regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's One For Ya', Bill

With The Simple Fact Being That, Much Like England Did In The Early To Mid 18TH Century, Israel Is Now Running The Show Here In The Good 'Ole United States, It Appears Very, Very Appropriate To Strongly Suggest That We Begin To Wake Up...

They Have Corrupted Our Politicians, Destroyed Careers And Lives Of Those Americans Who Chose To Oppose Israel, Dictate Both Our Domestic And Foreign Policies To Our Intimidated Officials, Instigated Conflict (Beginning With Their "Unprovoked" Attack On Their Arab Neighbors In 1967) And Continue To Undermine The Very "Christian" (As Were Each And Every One Of The 56 Signers Of The Declaration Of Independence) Fabric Upon Which This Country Began And Stood...

Israel, Through It's Agents In Both The Media And Entertainment Industry, Continue In Their Attempts To Undermine And Disrupt Our Christian Values, Our Fine Law Enforcement Agencies, Instigate Racial Strife And, Most Damaging, Have Spent Decades Corrupting That Wonderful Unit That, Simply Put, Played The Pivotal Role In Building This Fine Nation... "The American Family"

Also Seems Appropriate That We All Take A Moment To Read The Enclosed (Below) And Gather A True Sense Of The Sacrifices Made By Our Forefathers, Their Wives And Families And To Grasp And Understand The Full Significance Of Their Suffering...

Oh yeah beware of the big bad ZOG!

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the

Declaration of Independence

Religious Affiliation # of

signers % of

signers

Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%

Congregationalist 13 23.2%

Presbyterian 12 21.4%

Quaker 2 3.6%

Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%

Catholic 1 1.8%

TOTAL 56 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation

Charles Carroll, Maryland Catholic

Samuel Huntington, Connecticut Congregationalist

What exactly was the point of posting this here of ? Was it simply to highlight the absence of a particular ethnic/religious group? There weren’t any women, blacks, Muslims, Latinos, Native Americans or Asians either and I doubt any were any gays. In 1776 there were 1000 - 2500 Jews in America [1] out of a total population of over 2.5 - 3 million [2, 3] that comes out to 1/10 - 1/30 of 1%. The signers were members of the 2nd Continental Congress and most of the colonies (including RI and SC which had 2 of the largest Jewish communities) had religious restrictions for being elected, some even restricted voting on religious lines. Several Jews fought and died with the "Patriots" during the war.

Additionally many of the "Founding Fathers" though nominally members of were members of the Protestant denominations they were born into were actually Deists.

1] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc.../usjewpop1.html

2] http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/re...ons/001798.html

3] http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yju_o...4DA405B8485F0D3

And Please Note That My Emphasis Has Been On "Israel". Not On The Vast, Vast Majority Of Our Fine Populace

Of Jewish Americans...

Insincerity is unbecoming, why not own up to your prejudice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Len... I do admit to a prejudice...

Toward those of both narrow-mindedness and who wander through life wearing that proverbial set of blinders...

Kinda' like yourself...

Mike

Edited by Mike Regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Len... I do admit to a prejudice...

Toward those of both narrow-mindedness and who walk through life wearing the proverbial set of blinders...

Kinda' like yourself...

Mike

No, your prejudice is against Jews, despite your perfunctory denial. I don't say this because of your position regarding Israel but rather the parts of your post that I highlighted and discussed in my previous post. As for your position regarding Israel it is interesting compared to your support of the Vietnam war which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and the Suharto coup in Indonesia which resulted in the deaths of a similar number of civilians. My comments regard the war are not meant to be a slap a veterans of that conflict no matter what their position regarding it or anything else they (you) weren't responsible for decisions made by politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike is correct. the Israel Lobby in the US has captured US foreign policy and this dates back to Dealey Plaza, imo. This has had detrimental consequences for America's relations with the rest of the world.

The debate as to whether US policy has been captured by the Zionist Lobby is over, since the Mearsheimer/Walt paper in 2006 proved it was true:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...