A few well-publicized issues dominate discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process,. The future status of Jerusalem, right of return for Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and Israeli security are regularly addressed in Western news outlets. Discussed less often, but just as important, is the water rights conflict between the two parties. Water rights are vital to both peoples because the semi-arid region is increasingly experiencing droughts and now faces a broad water shortage.
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip face a dangerous shortage of usable water. The United States Agency for International Development recommends 100 liters of water per capita per day as the minimum quantity for basic consumption. Palestinians in the West Bank, however, average about 73 liters per day, and some 190,000 are not connected to a dependable water network. While Palestinians in Gaza consume more water (about 91 liters a day) than those in the West Bank, 95 percent of their supplies are polluted and deemed unsafe for drinking. Meanwhile Israelis, including settlers in the West Bank, consume over 200 liters of water a day on average.
How do Israelis and Palestinians get their water?
Three main water sources supply Israel with approximately equal shares of its total consumption. The Mountain Aquifer, situated largely in the West Bank, provides 80% of its water to Israelis and 20% to Palestinians. The Coastal Aquifer, which underlies the Gaza Strip and much of western Israel, provides nearly 90% of its water to Israelis, with the remainder going to Palestinians in Gaza. Finally, Israel shares water from the Jordan River with Jordan and Syria; the Palestinians do not have access to this source.
A Modern History of Water in the Region
For years, Jewish communities in the region obtained water from the Western and Northern Aquifers. Once the Israeli state was established, it implemented a permit system to allocate water-pumping rights. In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip and began using the Eastern and Gaza Aquifers. Palestinians were subsequently required to apply for permits from the Israeli military for any water projects, consistent with Israel’s domestic policy. In principle, this system could have led to more efficient water delivery system for the Palestinians. But the process has been bureaucratic and cumbersome; between 1967 to 1996, only 13 permits were granted to Palestinians.
In the meantime, Israel took advantage of its superior technology, extracting water from the occupied territories and distributing it to Israeli territory as well as Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Israel also agreed to provide the Palestinian Authority with water to be distributed to Arab communities. In the 1995 Oslo II Accord, Israelis and Palestinians settled on an Interim Agreement, which remains the prevailing deal on the region’s water rights today. The contract provided for general recognition of Palestinian water rights and for Israel to provide additional resources to the region based on need. The Palestinians would have greater access to the Eastern Aquifer, which was underutilized, whereas Israel was officially entitled to maintain its water usage level. Finally, a Joint Water Committee was established to approve water projects, by consensus among Israeli and Palestinian representatives. Crucially, Israel maintained the right to veto any Palestinian water initiatives. Some argue that this stipulation essentially legitimized Israeli control of water in the region.
Two Sides of the Argument
Many Palestinians and several human rights organizations, including =Amnesty International and B’Tselem, have criticized Israeli water policy. In their opinion, Israel has systematically excluded Palestinians from access to clean, fresh water and thereby denied them a basic human right. The water shortage in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they contend, has contributed to malnutrition, poor hygiene and a stagnant economy. They also claim that Israel’s minimal investment in water infrastructure has aggravated the situation, as Israel has neglected to connect rural communities to the water system and has failed to maintain existing networks. Finally, Israel’s security wall blocks Palestinians from accessing areas of the West Bank containing the most vital water sources.
Many Israelis counter that their country is fully within its rights to use the water that it does. Indeed, much of the world follows the principle of “prior appropriation,” which regards water rights as unconnected to land ownership, holding that the first party to use a quantity of water from a source for a beneficial use has the right to continue to use that quantity of water for that purpose. Israel, having efficiently extracted and pumped water from the West Bank Aquifers, is fully entitled to maintain its usage under this principle.
Israel’s defenders also note that Palestinians’ access to fresh water has improved by key measures since 1967, including per capita consumption, change in consumption relative to Israelis, conveyance of running water to households, and area of land under agricultural cultivation. Moreover, they note that the PA does not have the technology to efficiently pump and transport water. Finally, they argue that since responsibility for water distribution remains under the Palestinian Water Authority, losses through decayed infrastructure and water theft by Palestinian farmers is not Israel’s responsibility.
Implications for the Peace Process
With Palestinians power divided between Hamas in Gaza in the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, negotiating water rights as a whole is currently impossible. Many commentators argue that water resource negotiations can occur only after a peaceful two-state solution is determined. Still, some scholars argue that an integrated regional water plan could solve the problem through a system of water carriers, desalination plants, and pumping stations. Such water could be obtained from Egypt and Turkey, so any deals would depend on broader regional negotiations. Overall, the region’s failure to address the water shortage signifies ongoing stagnation and hopelessness in Palestinian communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment