JERUSALEM: Controversy between Israelis and Palestinians over the way water is shared was exacerbated by the recent publication of an Amnesty International report on the water shortage facing Palestinians. The report is highly critical of Israeli policy, claiming that Israel denies the Palestinians their share of available water, and says the average Palestinian consumes only a quarter of the water of an average Israeli.
The response to the report from both sides was entirely predictable. The Israelis refute the report’s basic premise that they are denying the Palestinians their fair share of water. The Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a formal statement saying that Israel had fulfilled its obligations under the Oslo Accords and supplied all the water to which the Palestinians are entitled.
Palestinian sources, on the other hand, praise the report. The head of the Palestinian Water Authority said it demonstrated that his people had been deprived of a basic right throughout the Occupation.
The question which has to asked, however, is to what extent will this report help individual Palestinians who lack sufficient water? Although the report makes recommendations, such as lifting the restrictions that hamper the distribution of water in the West Bank, redressing the favourable treatment of settlers, and lifting the Gaza blockade, the very fact that the report is worded in such a controversial way reduces the likelihood that its recommendations will be considered seriously by the Israelis.
What is needed are not mutual accusations but constructive thinking about how to solve the problem. The necessary steps towards a long-term solution to the water shortage in the West Bank and Gaza are largely known. They include treating the waste water of Palestinian towns and villages and re-using it for agriculture (thereby making more fresh water available for domestic consumers); building a large desalination plant in Gaza to meet the needs of Gazans and one on the Mediterranean coast to provide for the northern West Bank (something Israel has already agreed to); and, more controversial but necessary, a reassessment of the allocation of water from the mountain aquifers in the area with the possible increase of water quotas for Palestinians.
The question is: why are these solutions not implemented? The problem partly lies with the Joint Water Committee (JWC) – the formal framework for the management of water in the region, established as part of the Oslo agreements. Despite the fact that it is a joint Israeli-Palestinian committee, the Palestinians protest that they are required to obtain the approval of the JWC for all infrastructure development, while the same is not true for water development projects in Israel. Israelis do not need to seek Palestinian agreement even for projects that have evident implications for the water supply in Palestine. They also claim that the Israelis delay approval of much needed projects. In response, the Israelis have published a list of projects which were approved by the JWC but not implemented by the Palestinians.
The real obstacle to implementing solutions is mutual distrust. Israelis fear that if the Palestinians get full control over their water, the number of illegal wells would increase and the quality of the mountain aquifers would be further impaired. Palestinians see in Israeli actions a deliberate attempt to damage their morale and ultimately drive them off of their land.
A first step towards solving the impasse would be to redesign the JWC so that it is an instrument of management that serves the needs of both parties. This could be facilitated by a third party, a major donor perhaps, who would be present and arbitrate the disagreements. The water needs of the both societies should be considered as one and ultimately joint management of water in the region between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea would make good sense.
A necessary step in any solution would be for both sides to take account of the human needs of the other. Atavistic fears are at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They operate in the water sector just as they do in other areas. The Amnesty report, though evidently driven by a real sympathy for the Palestinians, does not really help resolve their problems. What is called for is, rather, a serious attempt to resolve the water shortage, in both Israel and the Palestinian Territories, in which each side engages the other with goodwill, under the auspices of a neutral donor.
Robin Twite is a former career official of the British Council now resident in Jerusalem. For over a decade he has managed joint Israeli/Palestinian projects dealing with environmental and water issues under the auspices of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
