The profitable occupation, and why it is never discussed

[azurnoir]

There have been several efforts to estimate the cost of the occupation. In 2011, Shir Hever concluded a study that estimated the annual cost at 9 billion USD – an average of $1,175 for every Israeli. In 2007, several economists gave a price tag of 50 billion dollars for (then) 40 years of Israeli control and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza. The Adva Center for socio-economical studies is doing the most extensive work on this front. While they don’t come up with a “bottom line” figure, their 2012 report had some interesting data (PDF, Hebrew) including the “special budget” the IDF received for operations in the West Bank between the years 1989 and 2011 – around 13 billion USD (the annual Israeli budget is around 100 billion USD).

Nobody could seriously question the existence of such revenues: From the Israeli companies directly involved in excavating and selling natural resources from the occupied territories – the most prominent example being Ahava beauty products (report, PDF); a recent Supreme Court ruling even allowed mining Palestinian land in order to satisfy the need of the growing Israeli real-estate market – to the captive market the Palestinian represents for Israel (household Israeli brands can be found anywhere in the West Bank and Gaza). Water is one of the much-needed resources in the Middle East: No less than 80 percent of the Mountain Aquifer – located underneath the West Bank – is used by Israel and the Israeli settlement, and only 20 percent goes to the Palestinian population (The average Israeli water consumption is 3.5-times the Palestinians’).

As land prices rose in Israel in recent decades, the West Bank became a handy source for new housing projects serving the two large metropolitan areas – Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. New towns for Jews of less affluent background– especially, but not exclusively, Orthodox – were built east of the Green line. In the 1980s most of these projects were built north-east of Tel Aviv, near Qalqilia (“5 minutes from Kfar Saba,” the ads were declaring); the last couple of decades have seen rapid developments in the southeast, near the Modi’in area and highway 443. Parts of the West Bank literally became the new suburbs of Tel Aviv.

<snip>

t’s not always enough to oppose the occupation – one needs to understand its appeal as well. I have written in the past on the Israeli addiction to the political status quo, especially on the Palestinian question. I think that an honest analysis of the cost and benefits of Israeli control over the West Bank would support the notion that the occupation represents an Israeli interest, and therefore would never come to an end as a result of an internal Israeli process alone

http://972mag.com/the-profitable-occupation-and-why-it-is-never-discussed/49497/

[bemildred]

1. It's always about the money, isn't it?

About who gets to play the big shot and get most of the money.

[pelsar]

2. gaza?

had some very profitable business going on...

sorry 972.....the simplistic theory doesn't hold up under history, as in the gaza withdrawal. I don't doubt there are interests involved, be it the settlers, ideology, security, cheap land costs, etc

but simplistic reasoning such as "its about the money" has to ignore recent history to put for such a thesis

[azurnoir]

3. so Israel has security reasons for it's hold on the Jordan river valley?

however Gaza is a convenient excuse I'll give you that

[pelsar]

4. this is very simple....but its foundation may be difficult...its not based on nationalism

the base foundation is that nationalism as per your belief that has now (finally) been clarified, is not the most important value for the establishment of a state.

previous to the establishment of a state, in order not to insure a failed stated is stability and that stability is best served with some form of established based in western civil rights. The PA that your advocating for, is clearly not stable. It is the very same PA that was in gaza that hamas so easily took over and just last week fired over 100 rockets into israel. A repeat in the jordan valley should not be risked (smuggling routes would easily be established- i.e.. a repeat of gaza)

Its quite simple: in our view nationalism as first priority above the establishment of a stable western style govt is not a the way for a peaceful region.....it may the progressive/right wing point of view, but its not good for the liberal country next door.

[bemildred]

5. Right, but you are assuming they will be incompetent and hostile.

Which makes it a circular argument, we won't change because we don't think they can change, a recipe for stayng on the current path. Very convenient for you, no changes required.

Whereas the entire point is to arrange it so they will be competent and friendly. You work things out with the Palestinians, nobody else is going to worry about it much, look at South Africa, nobody pays any attention to South Africa now.

[oberliner]

6. The fact that nobody pays attention to South Africa now is really sad

One would think that the people who were so concerned about the plight of South Africans during the 80's might want to take a look at what is going on there these days. I agree with you that they don't - probably for much the same reason why a wide variety of conflicts and human rights issues across Africa are relatively ignored (and why issues in other regions are magnified).

[bemildred]

7. I assume the South Africans are happy to not be in the global spotlight.

I see a good deal of complaining here about the focus on Israel, so I would assume that Israelis would not mind living in a "normal" country too, many of them anyway. So I sort of disagree about paying attention to South Africa being a good thing, I think the whole idea is to get everybody else to leave you alone to run your own affairs.

[shira]

9. The fear is that once there's an unstable Palestinian state in place, war will be imminent...

The focus will still be on the region, Israel will still be blamed for defending themselves, same exact shit different day.

I think Pelsar's point is that the PA needs to change. There should be genuine reform; at the very least freedom of speech/dissent before a state is declared. It's not that Pelsar doesn't believe the Palestinians can do that. I think that's a progressive/rightwing stance (that Hamas and the PA are incapable of change so why try). But it should be expected from them and encouraged, sticks and carrots, etc. That is, of course, if people are interested in Palestine being a viable, successful state rather than just another failed, regressive and warmongering state among its non-Israeli peers in the mideast.

[bemildred]

11. I know what the fear is, but fear makes you stupid too.

Like a deer in the headlights.

[shira]

13. Rational fear based on history and facts is not stupidity. Stupidity is not learning from...

...past history.

[bemildred]

15. You assume your conclusion, as usual, i.e. that fear is rational.

Like you can have sound well thought out emotions; like your adrenal glands respond to a good argument. Right. Thinking can be rational, reason is rational, but fear is not rational, it's emotional, and it interferes with thinking and reason.

Fear is the mind killer
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

-- The Bene Gesserit Litany of Fear from the novel Dune by Frank Herbert

Not that I think much of Dune.

Well, this has been pleasant, but as usual, it goes nowhere, so ta ta.

[shira]

18. Fine, don't look at it as fear then. Look at it as a rational educated opinion/position...

...based on past history and accurate analysis of the current situation.

It can easily be defended.

The opposing position you're in favor of is irrational and indefensible.

[bemildred]

20. I look on fear as fear.

As I said. It's all very well to speculate in a rational way about future events, but one ought not confuse that sort of thing with "future facts". There has been no race war in South Africa, BECAUSE a political settlement was arrived at. There is every reason to expect that Israel and the Palestinians can do as just as well, better even, it's harder to tell them apart.

[pelsar]

27. Stuiped is not having a plan B

its really really stupid to make assumptions about politics (let alone international politics) without assuming some failures along the way and have a backup plan to adapt.

it appears you have some vague 'they will work it, as in S.Africa" and leave it at that...ignoring hamas's plans, irans plans maybe the MBplans in Egypt all of which have influence on anybody who has plans here.

who's to say "your horse wins?....... Maybe it is worked out, expect its worked out to the satisfaction of Hamas?

[Shaktimaan]

30. are you suggesting

that Israel should not concern themselves with the possibility of war with the Palestinians should their state fail? Because being scared of something, like war, makes you weak and/or stupid?

One could use that argument to justify any stupid action.

[bemildred]

32. No.

I'm saying people that are emotionally overwrought don't think well, they make mistakes, sometimes they make bad mistakes, it distorts their perceptions of their situation.

There is a reason most people want to appear rational and reasonable, it's because irrational and unreasonable people do stupid things and so other people don't want to be around them.

[shira]

76. What do you make of people who are irrationally fearless or in denial of danger? n/t

[bemildred]

77. Not much.

About as much as I do of people that respond to week old posts with nebulous hypothetical questions.

[Bradlad]

8. Look ma - no hands.

Right, but you are assuming they will be incompetent and hostile.

And this is different from every other Arab state since the end of WWII in what way?

I think the reality is that Western societies keep believing that Arab societies, against all evidence, are just about to become liberal and egalitarian in the Western model. (This was particularly evident in the punditocracy and opinion pages of the Western MSM as we recently watched the Arab Spring unfold.) Maybe it's wishful thinking or they at least understand that saying so may help them secure some favor from the Arab world. Probably the latter since the Western states most deluded about this also tend to publicly question Israel's legitimacy.

Israel, the only ME state that is actually based on the Western model and that actually lives next door to several hostile incompetent Arab states, doesn't have that luxury of such pretenses.

[bemildred]

10. Right, so you just assume that is a permanent condition?

Muslims are just not capable of being cool like us? Is that the idea?

It's not like the Western colonial powers did such a good job of democratizing things when they owned the Middle East, or that Israel has tried to help the Palestinians govern themselves well.

We love corrupt despots as long as they give us what we want (oil, for example), so much easier to deal with. Of course, that leads to political unrest and violence, but we still get what we want, eh?

[shira]

12. No, I think you and many progressives & right-wingers think that's permanent...

And that's why you all believe in nationality first and foremost before civil rights. Now if you do believe the Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghanis, etc.. are capable of imminent change at the turn of a hat like Bush and his neocon BFF's, that's obviously ridiculous.

There's plenty that can be done to persuade or motivate Palestine into becoming more Westernized (with at least free speech/dissent to start with). And BTW, I'm with Pelsar on that one. Once Palestine guarantees free speech/dissent and practices that clearly, they're on their way and deserve more support. That will go a long way to ensuring a stable state and peace. Otherwise, expect the same old...

[bemildred]

16. You are sooo fond of sweeping generalities.

"you and many progressives & right-wingers"

Could be just about anybody.

[shira]

19. So correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is Palestinian nationality first, then civil rights...

...after that; maybe or maybe not. Doesn't matter since the conflict will be past history, like the model in S.Africa.

The point being, you believe once there's a state THEN civil rights may or may not happen for Palestinians.

That's a nationalist, rightwing position.

How am I wrong?

[bemildred]

21. I'm correcting, you are wrong.

I don't have a position, that's to be negotiated. The closest thing I have to a "position" is reflected in my posts in this thread. I think things are not going well. and they will continue to not go well until the Palestinians get to run their own affairs politically. The notion that they have to shape up first, and then somebody will "give" them their rights, is a recipe for eternal conflict. As long as Israeli soldiers are running around in Palestinian territories, there is going to be what there is already. What you have now is what you get with the current policies. So my position then, I suppose, is that what the GOI is doing now produces the results that you have now, which are bad, as we discuss so frequently here. I will be willing to assign more responsibility to the Palestinians when they have more control of their own affairs.

[shira]

22. The Palestinians require more control of their own affairs....okay. Then would you say in Gaza...

...the Palestinians there currently have control of their own affairs?

[bemildred]

23. No.

Although it has it's own elected government, it's a weak government, under blockade, hence at war, and is designated as a bunch of terrorists, not even able to control it's own economy, weak and isolated, in other words, which is what was intended by the policies now being pursued.

That's all very well, but it will never lead to anything better than what you have now, although it is always possible that some deeper problem will come along and nobody will care about this anymore, environmental issues in particular look likely to play that role.

Cheer up, the way things are going in Syria, Israel may well get to hang to the Golan indefinitely.

[shira]

24. It's Gaza's choice to be under blockade, at war, to have a poor economy, to be weak...

...and isolated. All they need to do is renounce terror and recognize Israel. Simple.

Besides they can do whatever they want through Egypt. Israel can't stop Gaza from succeeding via Egypt.

But I guess there'll always be excuses as to why Gaza is being 'prevented' from changing.

[bemildred]

25. Yeah, it's really simple, isn't it?

[pelsar]

28. if you take the viewpoint that the gazans are capable people than yes....

it politics but smart politics. The egyptian border being closed or open depends upon the political abilities of the gazans that you previously mentioned that you believe they have.

the egyptian/gazan border has nothing to do with israel.....and it appears they haven't succeed there much (it could be they prefer the tunnels...)

as far as the israeli/gazan border, here too they have failed with their politics as well. Trying to kill israelis will not bring a positive response from israel with opening the borders.
___

there is nothing stopping the gazans from improving their own conditions other then their own politics and those that make excuses for them.

[Shaktimaan]

29. So....

You think that the Palestinians will be unable to begin building the foundations necessary for a prosperous and peaceful state until they have full autonomy over their own affairs? IOW, give them the responsibility first and only then they will be able to fulfill it.

Is there a reason you think this? Why can't they form strong democratic foundations and a working government now, BEFORE they NEED one to survive? You know, like Israel did.

And what happens if they fail?

[Bradlad]

14. Justifiable question.

I don't have much time this morning but I'll try to give you the simple answer. I don't think any state of mind - whether individual or national or cultural - is permanent. OTOH I'd say that some states of mind, in all those categories, can be extremely resilient. I also believe it is important to be very realistic about that when dealing with individual or national or cultural states-of-mind where matters of life and death are concerned.

I'd add: It's not a matter of "being cool". It's a matter of wanting to organize your society in a way that creates the most happiness and prosperity for its members. IMO that desire must be a shared positive value in the society for it to progress in that direction and it must be more important than other values that would compete with it. Since most of the societies we're talking about have many millions of members, good results in that direction can create a noticeable increase in the amount of happiness in the world - and a corresponding decrease in poverty and despair. I think that's a very good outcome that's worth pursuing.

[bemildred]

17. And what is this entity that "wants" things?

Generally it's some government or another, i.e. particular people, or just some particular non-government people. And most governments don't care much for having the public meddle with their plans, they what they want.

And then there are the existing cultural norms and taboos, which tend to be permanent in most individuals, but change generationally.

I think most such changes are generational, going on all the time, for example cousin marriage in on the decline, as are reproductive rates for women in most Muslim nations now. In the USA being LGBT is becoming more socially acceptable all the time, and it's driving the fundies nuts.

One neglects to try to steer the future in a desirable direction at ones peril, the future is not compelled by the past. The past is done and over with, you have to get out in front of things.

Nice response, thanks.

[pelsar]

26. the assumption is that, being incompetent and hostile is a real possibility....

and if that possibility becomes real, what would be the options. The solution for gazas failure is not an acceptable solution, hence the question becomes how to insure, or at least "stack the deck" so that, that outcome has a far less a chance.

the world is full of what is referred to "radical injustice (occupations) becoming enduring injustice (long term failed govts that are just as unjust if not more).

And S. Africa is a good example as is zimbabwa, once a country gets its independence it more or less drops off the "radar" of the "do gooders" since as i understand political theory, you can basically do what you want within your own borders as long as you don't disrupt the oil supply...... (political exceptions noted with iran)

[bemildred]

33. Incompetent and hostile is the current situation, no need to speculate.

The question was how do you change that? Clearly, the current policies are not working.

[pelsar]

35. precisely...which is why its time for a change...a real change, not more of the same

enough of the "its the settlements"..that was proven to be false.
enough of the "hands off the Palestinians corrupt govt....that sure hasn't helped
enough of the indirect support of hamas, that sure hasn't helped

_____

the change is simple, do what has shown to work, it worked in japan, it worked in germany and it worked in pre israel:
the concept of independence/revolution with out a democratic foundation is gamble that in the middle east region is a losing hand.


democracy before independence (freedom of speech or example), democracy before nationalism......

it means stating clearly that western democracy, with its civil rights, women's rights, gay rights is the superior culture and is the culture that will be required before independence without apologizing for that belief.
say no to FGM, no to honor killing....

it can be done quietly, subtly as well as "in your face", but that would be the real change.....

[bemildred]

41. Oh my. nt

[Bradlad]

36. The current policies are not working?

It's interesting how some believe that if something is less than ideal in the world that means we must do something to change it. Unfortunately nature doesn't always give us problems that can be solved to some (every) human's satisfaction. In some cases you make the best choice from the options available to you.

In this case Israel has done that. Israel keeps its occupying forces on the WB but has removed them from many areas. Israel has built a physical barrier against terrorists that has saved many lives - mostly Israelis but Palestinians too. Israel still exists and is prospering economically while the rest of the world is suffering a major economic recession. Israel has just discovered trillions of cu-ft of natural gas in its territorial waters. Right now, things don't seem so bad for Israel. That could all change of course but for now I'd say the current policies are working very well and are probably close to being the best choices from the options available.

[bemildred]

39. "something less than ideal".

Hey, you like it the way it is now, go for it. Just don't say nobody warned you.

[Bradlad]

44. What?

What makes you think I like it the way it is now? I think you're trying to say that if things don't change - if Israel doesn't do what you think it should - then there will be a terrible price to pay.

Another commenter here already pointed out how curiously certain Israel's detractors are about their predictions for the future so I won't get into that. But, I suspect that Israel believes its best option for now is to hope that someday the Arabs decide that their best option is living with Israel rather than trying to destroy it. And if that day ever comes then Israel will not need to have military forces stationed there preventing terrorism from the WB.

Actually I believe the average Palestinian accepted that premise (their best option is living with Israel rather than trying to destroy it) pre 1947. What's happened since is really the product of traditional 7th Century Arab politics (inter-Arab rivalries over power and oil wealth).

To be clear I'm sure that neither Israel nor I like it the way things are. But sometimes there are no better options. I'm sure Israel is looking for them at all times.

[bemildred]

46. You seem to think the current policies are "working", eh?

Or do you agree with me that they are not "working"?

Edit: given the sub-thread below, I look forward to your prompt, explicit reply to "my question".

[Bradlad]

48. I guess you need to . .

. . specify for what end or goal or purpose the policies are working or not working.

As I said, I believe they are working in that Israel still exists and is in a pretty good position to defend itself and the state is thriving by all measures of a successful state - relative to its neighbors certainly, but even with respect to the UE or the US. Of course, there are political factions and disagreements in Israel but that also is an example of "working", in democracies.

Since you believe it is not "working", I'd like to know in what ways.

[bemildred]

49. Ha ha! I knew it. nt

[bemildred]

51. Well, I suppose I should be forthcoming ...

The "not working" is political, Israel is in fine shape militarily, but there is more or less constant whining here about it's bad international reputation, and the UN, and NGOs, etc. That is one way it is "not working".

Then there are the internal social and political problems, the divisiveness of the settlement project as time goes on, the Neocon economic sellout, demographic trends. As you might infer from the above, I think the real threats to Israel are internal and political and have as much to do with what sort of place it will come to be as with anybody else doing anything to it.

[Bradlad]

55. I agree

I agree that Israel has a bad international reputation. I used to think it must be somewhat justified before I really started looking into it. I have come to the conclusion that the larger world is what's gone to hell in a hand basket on this issue - the anti-Israel whining here being a minor example of that. I personally find that Israel is one of the few bright spots that gives some hope for human civilization. I've never seen any other Western power be so kind and gentle to enemies that continually try - over and over again - everything they possibly can do to destroy Israel and kill its citizens. I would certainly be for impeaching any president of my country who did not try to respond to an armed attack like rockets fired on the US in a way that did not guarantee that the perpetrators would not ever be able to attack us or anyone else again.

As far as Israel's domestic issues, that doesn't concern me so much except as a passing interest. They are a true democracy that gives all its citizens equal rights by law. That means if the citizens don't like what's happening they all equally have the means to change it. For me, that's what counts and makes them worthy of my respect. I'd say they are doing a very decent job under extremely difficult conditions. Imagine what the ME would be like today if the Palestinians had followed a similar path of accommodation in 1947 and accepted the Partition Plan and tried to make the best of it as the Jews did.

[pelsar]

57. israeli internal conflicts is defining "not working"....sheesh

those internal conflicts, whatever they maybe, different groups tugging in their own direction is THE critical aspect of a working democracy, a MUST have.

a democracy must be able to handle, change, go back and forth with the various interests as the interests of the population changes:

be it neo cons, capitalists, religious, socialists, progressives, libertarians....no one group has the ultimate answer for the "end of time" that everyone will agree to

only someone who dreams of a dictatorship, with "reeducation camps" for those who don't understand their utopia, would wish for a society that has no conflicts...

is that your definition of "working.?

or is your definition of 'conflict" a bunch of liberals/progressives sitting around the coffee table discussing the definition of "justice" while leaving the libertarians, capitalists in the "re-education camps."
_____

a footnote:
the divisiveness of the settlement project
not really...since gaza its not much a front page issue in israel

[bemildred]

58. Everybody has internal conflicts, I'm talking about trends.

Same as here in the USA. The question is not where you've been, it's where are you going?

[pelsar]

60. what trends?

we have a stable govt, politically israel is not a split as it was 10year ago, racism is down from what it was 10-20 years ago, the minority arabs have been making both political and financial gains over the years. The gay communities are have major strides.....

the society is making adjustments in terms of housing costs and food costs. Health care remains a stable of the society. Stanley Fisher has kept the economy on solid footing.We also have a huge gap between the richest and the lower strata

our "neo cons" as in Lieberman etc remain socially on the left side of the line.
______

so what are these "trends" and be specific that are so destroying the country, because all i see is the normal back and forth of living tolerant democracy

[bemildred]

59. Here, this kind of thing:

I'm the same way about the US you know.

http://metrotimes.com/columns/the-fourth-and-our-future-1.1338650

[azurnoir]

31. graphic showing water distribution West Bank

[Bradlad]

34. Rather than . .

Thanks for the simple-minded graphic from an obviously anti-Israel website (Visualizing Occupation) published / created by a single individual who has no need to worry about his reputation if called out for being untruthful.

If you're interested, here's a far more comprehensive discussion of the topic. This one has numerous links to the references used and other scholarly papers on the topic so that you can actually check for accuracy yourself

The article: http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=ewJXKcOUJlIaG&b=7712197&ct=11634347¬oc=1

Another good link: http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/MSPS94.pdf

Here are some highlights if you don't want to read the articles:

Inefficiencies and violations in the Palestinian water network

As of 2012, Israel has approved the drilling of 71 wells for drinking and agricultural uses, as well as 22 observation wells. But the Palestinian Water Authority has yet to drill about half of them.

All water wells have to be approved by the Israeli-Palestinian Joint Water Committee (JWC). However, Palestinians have dug over 250 wells in violation of the 1995 agreement. The PA has supported such violations by connecting the unapproved wells to the electricity network.

The Palestinians illegally siphon water from the Israeli water provider, Mekorot, which supplies both Israelis and Palestinians. For this reason, there are water shortages in Hebron, Bani Naim, Beita and other Palestinian villages and communities. The Palestinians have not developed the Eastern Aquifer despite the fact that the JWC has approved every request to drill wells in it.

Palestinian failure to build sewage facilities and ensuing problems

The Water Works Committee of the JWC approved laying hundreds of kilometers of water pipes throughout the West Bank and the construction of dozens of storage reservoirs and pumping stations.[19]

The Palestinians have failed to construct sewage treatment facilities as required of them in the Interim Agreement due to mismanagement, poor maintenance, hydrological errors and engineering mistakes. This has led to polluted water supplies and environmental degradation. For example, the Hebron stream, which flows toward the Be’er Sheva Valley, has now become polluted and nearby Palestinian and Israeli communities suffer from polluted water, bad odors, flies and mosquitoes. The Nablus stream which flows westward is also now polluted. The westward flow of this stream pollutes water inside Israel.

Many other streams have effectively become wastewater channels for Palestinian towns and cities and the untreated water subsequently pollutes the Mountain Aquifer which then affects water drawn from wells. This has led to the contamination and closure of a number of wells in the Bethlehem district, the Jerusalem district and some in the Jordan Valley as well.

Of all the wastewater that emanates from the West Bank, about 27 percent comes from the Israeli population and 73 percent from the Palestinian population.

Israel’s use of treated wastewater, its desalination activities, measures to reduce water losses in the water system and other water-saving procedures add 800 MCM per year to its water supply, amounting to 33 percent of Israel’s total water usage.

According to a report by the European Commission, Israel uses more treated wastewater effluents (on a percentage basis) per capita for agricultural irrigation and wastewater than any other country in the world. Israel is also second in overall wastewater reuse after California.

[azurnoir]

37. you r cute little links leave out one thing per Oslo all water projects must be intitiated

by consensus, meaning the Israeli occupation government must give permission for any Palestinian water project,
your PDF does nothing to disprove the graphic and in fact confirms Israel's actions against Palestinians who have the nerve to dig wells on their land

West Bank. At an average sustainable rate, the amount of renewable shared freshwater available throughout the entire Jordan Valley is roughly 2700 million cubic metres per year, which is composed of 1400 million cubic metres of groundwater and 1300 million cubic metres of surface water.[17] However, only a fraction of this can be used by Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel has denied Palestinians access to the entire Lower Jordan River since 1967. After the start of Israel’s military occupation in 1967, Israel declared the West Bank land adjacent to the Jordan River a closed military zone, to which only Israeli settler farmers have been permitted access.[18] Groundwater resources include two main aquifers: The highly productive mountain aquifer that slopes towards the more rainy West, and the less productive Eastern aquifer located under the drier part of the West Bank. Palestinians are not allowed to drill wells into the mountain aquifer. Most of its water thus flows underground towards the slopes of the hills and into Israeli territory.[19] According to different estimates, between 80 and 85% of groundwater in the West Bank is used either by Israeli settlers or flows into Israel.[20][21]


As part of the 1995 Interim Agreement, a Joint Water Committee (JWC) has been established between Israel and the Palestinian territories. The JWC was expected to implement the regulations of article 40 of the agreement which concern water and sanitation. The committee is composed of an equal number of participants by the two parties, which means that each side has a veto. The JWC is not independent from Israel and the PWA. Instead, decisions can be passed to a higher political level. Jägerskog reports several delays concerning the implementation of Palestinian project proposals within the committee, partly due to missing Palestinian funding, time-consuming approval procedures, hydrological and political reasons. However, it is valued that the JWC facilitates cooperation between the two parties, even in times of high political tension like the second intifada.[37]

This page was last modified on 15 April 2012 at 09:37.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Palestinian_territories

[Bradlad]

38. What's your point?

Not sure what you're getting at since you didn't explain - but the point is that Israel has abided by the water agreement that Israel and the Palestinians signed in 1995 - Oslo II.

If you are saying they have broken the agreement - you did not say how they did that.

Or maybe you accept that Israel has conformed to the agreement but you still think they are a vile state anyway.

Or just what are you saying?

[azurnoir]

40. perhaps you should reread my comment then

my point was quite clear and you have done nothing that disproves the graphic the 'best' your links do is attempt to justify it, when you have statistics from a third party say the World Bank or someone then get back to me, eh?

[Bradlad]

42. So then . .

are you saying that Israel has violated the agreement or not? If so how? If not, what's your point?

Added: The only "point" you seemed to make was that projects had to be initiated by consensus. From that you deduced that that means Israel prevents the Palestinians from drilling wells or something. What it actually means is that either side can prevent the other from initiating a project it does not like for some reason. But if either side exercises that veto power they are still conforming to the agreement.

[azurnoir]

43. so you admit the graphic is true? but then attempt to justify it?

weren't most Israeli water projects in the OPT already complete when the agreement was signed? Israel routinely rejects Palestinian water project requests, which Israeli water projects have the Palestinians rejected, and if Israel responds with its usual extended middle finger what will the Palestinians do, besides complain?

[Bradlad]

45. What you've said . .

I think, is that you (on behalf of the Palestinians) don't like the agreement terms. Which is not the same thing as saying they violated the agreement.

I suspect that if Israel was actually violating the terms they would be sued by the PA in some international court. I'm not aware of any successful suits (or unsuccessful ones either) so I assume the Palestinians are not making this claim. It seems to be made by Western NGO's (read leftists) trying the usual smear Israel for anything that might stick - charge.

Now, can you answer my simple question? Did Israel violate the agreement or not?

[azurnoir]

47. Israel is using the terms of the agreement to stymie Palestinian water development

at the time the agreement was signed apparently no one anticipated that, which was as time has shown quite unwise, as to smearing Israel the facts speak for themselves don't they?

Israel has used the agreement to further its colonization project in the West Bank, plain and simple, its called using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, something Israel has shown a propensity for doing in the case of the Palestinians

[Bradlad]

50. Than you (or someone) should take them to court.

Or the PA should request a re-negotiation. Actually the agreement was for five years and is now expired. But both parties apparently have agreed to honor the existing agreement for now - although the Palestinians violate it repeatedly. I don't know the details but I suspect that there would be a price to pay for Abbas to sign any agreement with the Israelis - like maybe his neck.

[azurnoir]

52. Thank you for admitting that Israel uses the agreement to stop Palestinian development

and then complains about the Palestinians not doing enough, it takes a gullible audience or one that simply doesn't care to be sure but thanks again the graphic is correct, my contentions about Israel's actions are correct too

The most you can do is an avoidance thing you have not answered any of my questions and then chest pounds the but its legal angle may I remind you that Oslo also required the Israeli occupation to end within 6 years whatever happened to that?

[Bradlad]

53. A good example . .

of spurious generalized claims of evilness to vilify Israel. I guess you really have no concrete examples of Israel's treachery.

[azurnoir]

54. the facts of the case speak for themselves don't they?

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

you can say its vilifying Israel so are we to not know these things should they remain hidden or what

The concrete evidence is the agreement it self and the facts concerning water usage, the best you can do is say but it's legal we can do that, but you can not repudiate the graphic can you ?

no you can not, but keep on justifying it says so much about Israel's supporters stance morally and ethically

[Shaktimaan]

56. not really.

The graphic just says that Israel uses more water than the Palestinians.

What kind of water infrastructure improvements did the Palestinians propose that Israel refused to allow?

confirms Israel's actions against Palestinians who have the nerve to dig wells on their land

Ummm, are you saying that any Palestinian who wants to should be able to tap into shared water resources merely because he owns the land above it? Because that's not a thing that anyone gets to do. If oil is discovered beneath my house do you think I get to pump it and sell it myself? Or do you think that the mineral rights are subject to state oversight (if not outright ownership?)

Right now your biggest complaint is that Israel is adhering to the negotiated water agreement between the two nations.

[azurnoir]

61. well Israel does adhere to the parts of Oslo that it wants too

the parts that can be convoluted to its advantage but the main point that the occupation would end within 6 years has been kicked to the curb, it could appear that Israel signed Oslo in bad faith with the intention of using it to deepen and make permanent the occupation and colonization of Palestine.

[Shaktimaan]

62. You think really?

it could appear that Israel signed Oslo in bad faith with the intention of using it to deepen and make permanent the occupation and colonization of Palestine.

Speaking strictly personally, it would not appear that way to me. In the years since Oslo was signed, Israal ended its occupation of Lebanon. made a good faith attempt at finding enough middle ground to support a peace agreement and even made an offer at Camp David. Israel also expunged Gaza of all Israelis, including soldiers and politicians, (and ESPECIALLY EVERY SETTLER LIVING IN GAZA!), granting the Palestinians their first ever taste of sovereignty.

Look, I guess you are free to speculate wildly like this, but your premise is not only lacking any legitimate evidence but doesn't even really make much sense logically. The Oslo Accords was Rabin's baby... I don't think I've ever heard anyone even remotely opine out loud that he was a closeted hawk, who was fostering the accords in order to later use them to further disenfranchise the Palestinians. The Accords were deeply polarizing to Israeli society. To think that anyone would have taken such a strong public role in support of them, (literally giving his life up in the service of their success), ONLY as part of a bid to secretly undermine the peace process and further oppress the Palestinians; well, that is cynical on a level I have trouble visualizing. It is cynical even for you.

[azurnoir]

63. lol ya Israel left Lebanon alright and then used

used a provocation that in the past had resulted in negotiations (when Syria was involved at least to attempt to destroy as much civilian infrastructure as possible, use WP, kill over 1100 civilians hmmm bravo Israel so I guess we now know how many Lebanese lives one Israeli is worth something on the order of 550 per

there is no wild speculation the settler population has grown almost 200% since Oslo, along with making life as difficult as possible for those Palestinians that had the gall to remain in area C, domination of resources especially water which we're told Israel doesn't really need but what the heck why let those Arabs have it right

so no speculation involved the results are there for all to see no matter how you may wish to obfuscate it

[pelsar]

66. actually its more....

bravo Israel so I guess we now know how many Lebanese lives one Israeli is worth something on the order of 550 per

my own personal worth is based on a 10,000: 1 ratio
my kids: 94,500:1 ratio..and that includes firebombing beruit if necessary

just thought i would correct your numbers.

as far a "provocation goes"...actually we love getting shot at, having our soldiers killed while on patrol, bodies taken and used for negotiation, its gets us all excited so we can go and kill some non jews..all we need is just a little provocation....a bus blowing up here, a restaurant there, a few missiles on a home.

a normal country would take that kind of thing "in stride" and just ignore it....

[azurnoir]

69. well its nice to see how many thousands of Arab children you think one Jewish child is worth

or is it that it's your kids? In any event most would disagree with your evaluation

[pelsar]

70. its more personal.... my kids

what do i care what 'most would think".....I thought i made i clear long ago, that groupthink mentality is not something i agree with.

its 95,000 others, i haven't yet figured out the ratio of children/adults, vs my own children yet..i 'll get back to you on that.

[azurnoir]

73. well as anyone reading this thread can tell there is certainly a group think mentality going on

so really I do not understand your statement it seems more a matter of which group

[pelsar]

64. does being show to be wrong..affect anything?

that of course is the difference between one who believes in something based on actual events, and who's opinion will change with either new events or new information (shown to be wrong) or one who believes in something like a religion, where history, facts and events make no affect on ones opinion.

you complaints here against israel seem to be based on some kind of "its not fair" kind of whining. Israel is adhering to the the agreement, that you seem to believe they shouldn't d0 (make up your mind, should israel adhere to agreements or not?.....) the FAO.org has following statement in their report:

While Israel has one of the best performing water sectors in the world,

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/israel/index.stm

(that usually means preventing wildcat wells etc, something you seem to believe the Palstenians should be allowed to do......

and the graphic? hmm very simplistic and misleading: to begin with the settlements get most of their water from the israeli water company mekerot that pipes in the water, how they got the 80% for the settlements from the acquifer is beyond me (and i suspect beyond them)
__________________________________________
on another note: i wonder what the israeli water plans are for the new Palestenian city being built? I'm sure you'll tell us just how diabolicol they will be:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4181368,00.html
Rawabi is slated to become the first Palestinian city to be built in the territories since 1967. The town is expected to offer some 12,000 housing unit

We're not only building homes there, but also public parks, shopping malls, and a country club,"

[azurnoir]

65. there is a difference between what your article shows to be Israel and what you

apparently think of as Israel, the graphic I posted concerned area C and the West Bank, where as your article concerned Israel within the Green Line two different things, well at least to most of us

but it was a nice effort at any rate and thanks for clarifying what you consider Israel

[pelsar]

67. not according to the graphic...

the mt aquifers water usage is divided by a ratio of about 80% of israel and the settlements and 20% for the Palestenians

nothing there about area C or the west bank in the graphic.....its about the general usage of the acquirer.

[azurnoir]

68. Here is the graphic once again it is explicitly about the West Bank

along with a clip from an Israeli TV show about the situation




Because Israel restricts Palestinian access to natural water sources in the West Bank, Palestinians are forced to depend on water allocation by Mekorot, the national water company. But in many West Bank villages, the daily water allocation supplied to residents is much lower than the minimal supply required by the global health monitoring organization.

WATCH this video report by Israel Social TV on A-Dik, a small village near the settlement of Ariel, where residents find themselves in an ongoing water crisis.

http://972mag.com/watch-palestinian-village-suffers-from-ongoing-water-shortage/50085/

[pelsar]

71. so your against water management.......and adhering to agreements....

Because Israel restricts Palestinian access to natural water sources in the West Bank, Palestinians are forced to depend on water allocation by Mekorot, the national water company (wild cat wells in usually considered a bad thing....expect if you have to find something to demonize israel with)....


While Israel has one of the best performing water sectors in the world,

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/israel/index.stm

_____________

i'm afraid i have credibility crises with all of the demonizations of israel....its hard to figure out what is true or what is not, since so many of the initial accusations turn out to be false

hmmm, so first israel was starving the gazans and now israel is having the west bankers "die of thirst"...(past experience has shown that even a minor problem can turn in to massive false headlines and articles)
___

and i repeat your graphic is confusing on purpose as they write this on the graphic itself:
the mt aquifers water usage is divided by a ratio of about 80% of israel and the settlements and 20% for the Palestenians
hence they are NOT talking just about the west banks usage of the water.
____

and you didn't answer, should israel adhere to agreements or not?..i'm very confused with your 'standard."

[azurnoir]

72. well I do understand why as a loyal Israeli why you'd

have little problem with Israeli's domination of water resources

Now as to your question if you believe that Israel is simply adhering to 'agreement' thenm it would seem you'd have a problem with not adhering to leaving the West Bank within 6 years of Oslo being signed

It seems that Israel's supporters have no problem with Israel picking and choosing what parts of Oslo it 'adheres' to, not a surprise

[pelsar]

74. guess you missed the question...

should israel/Pa "agree" to wildcat water wells....thereby ignoring the agreement and the good management of the water sources as per the quote.

i have no idea why you mentioned 6 years....are u assuming that i have no idea of the other provisons and how they are linked? or is this meant for the less informed and naive who don't know anything about the agreement and your simply trying to give them partial information on purpose?

[azurnoir]

75. no I did not miss your 'question' but the fallback position of"but, but, but it's legal"

"we're keeping the agreement" seems quite weak especially when one takes into account the fact that Israel rarely issues building permits to Palestinians which is the real reason for the "wildcat" wells but whatever comforts you

[pelsar]

78. you just don't like the result....but thats why there are agreements

the essence of agreements is to reduce continued conflict, so both side adhere to them even when one side feels screwed.

add to that, that confirmation that israel has good water management and the only thing your left with is:

"its not fair"

and that is not much of an argument in the real world, though the emotional appeal does work for many.

[azurnoir]

79. Israel has very good water managment for Israeli's and only for Israel's

unfortunately the water it is 'managing' so perfectly is not Israel's water, but I do find it amusing that what you are left with is essentially we do this because no one can stop us, yes we realize it is wrong and unjust and maybe even a bit greedy but what the heck what can anyone do to stop us, because as it is now we can go on with this forever

Like I have said before you do have your work cut out for you advertising Israel and for myself I could not ask for more

[pelsar]

80. must remember..the ends justifies the means

unfortunately the water it is 'managing' so perfectly is not Israel's water,

and yet on a zillion other threads you'll argue that israel as the occupying country is responsible for the resources of those its occupying.

now your complaining that israel is managing a resource that its responsible for but yet is not theirs to manage.

your logic at face value is contradictory at best, however if we look at it through the "ends justifies the means lens" that israel must be demonized no matter what it does, then it makes perfect sense:

1) israel is the occupier and is responsible for the water management
2) both parties agree that israel will manage the water
3) israel sticks to the water agreement
4) Israel has good water management
_____

Your response?
israel is bad because they are managing water that is not theirs, even though the parties involved agree that israel should manage the water and by intl standards is doing a good job.

do you really expect anybody who is not blinded by religion/nationalism to take your response seriously?

[azurnoir]

81. Tens of thousands of Palestinians suffer from water supply disruptions in East Jerusalem

For the past month the water supply to tens of thousands of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem has been sporadic, at times no more than two days a week. The problem affects communities connected to the city water system as well as ones that receive their water from the Palestinian Authority.

Those affected are all Jerusalem residents with blue, Israeli-issued identity cards who live on either side of the separation fence.

The problem is predominantly on the Palestinian side of the fence in the northern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ras Khamis, Ras Shahada and Hashalom as well as the Shoafat refugee camp. Residents of these communities say that for the past few weeks they have had a regular water supply only two to three days a week. Sometimes there is water only at night, and usually the water pressure is quite low. Water to these neighborhoods is supplied by Gihon, the Jerusalem municipality's water corporation.

........................................................

It would appear that the 45 years that have passed since the city's unification were not enough time for the authorities to connect all of East Jerusalem's residents to the municipal water system. Thousands of them, mainly in the northern neighborhoods of Kafr Aqab, on the Palestinian side of the fence, but also in Beit Hanina, on the Israeli side, receive their water supply from El Bireh, near Ramallah. They too are experiencing disruptions to their water supply. They attribute the problem to the overall water shortage in the Palestinian Authority, which relies on the water allocations supplied to it by Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/tens-of-thousands-of-palestinians-suffer-from-water-supply-disruptions-in-east-jerusalem.premium-1.450292

[pelsar]

82. very good....

Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:09 AM - Edit history (2)

there you have an article, from a credible source, unlike your misleading graphic, which clearly states the source of the water and the problem...

there is no exaggeration, no attempt to mislead......and all i am left with is the strength of a democracy with its open press and ability to discover and publish the wrong doings of the israeli govt.

here is a small lesson in why the concept of the "ends justifies the means" is a wrong philosophy. Its use of exaggerations, false information, misleading information tends to turn off the educated. It works on the less educated, the more emotional and the religious inclined (those that need to be told what to do and what to think).

Israelis however are for the most part an educated people with a history, much of it personal and tend to recognized that philosophy, the exaggerations, the misleading statements, the information left out and it removers the credibility of the writer and his/her supporters.

for those who are actually interested in first a negotiated peace as the greater good and put their own idea of nationalism and "justice" (with its complimentary enduring injustice as the conseqence) as of secondary goal, they will need the support of the avg israeli.

if the other two goals (nationalism and "justice') are your goals, then you don't need our support and your present philosophy of "any goes, the ends justifies the means" is more appropriate.

its not much of a winning philosophy, and its debatable whether the Palestinians themselves appreciate being treated like some nationalistic/progressive experiment in political philosophy, but then peace and civil rights are definitely not the primary issues here as its been so clearly explained to me here.