Israelis get four-fifths of scarce West Bank water, says World Bank

[Donald Ian Rankin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/27/israel-palestinian-water-dispute

A deepening drought in the Middle East is aggravating a dispute over water resources after the World Bank found that Israel is taking four times as much water as the Palestinians from a vital shared aquifer.

The region faces a fifth consecutive year of drought this summer, but the World Bank report found huge disparities in water use between Israelis and Palestinians, although both share the mountain aquifer that runs the length of the occupied West Bank. Palestinians have access to only a fifth of the water supply, while Israel, which controls the area, takes the rest, the bank said.

Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians and 125 for Gazans, the bank said. Increasingly, West Bank Palestinians must rely on water bought from the Israeli national water company, Mekorot.

In some areas of the West Bank, Palestinians are surviving on as little as 10 to 15 litres a person each day, which is at or below humanitarian disaster response levels recommended to avoid epidemics. In Gaza, where Palestinians rely on an aquifer that has become increasingly saline and polluted, the situation is worse. Only 5%-10% of the available water is clean enough to drink.

...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tempest]

3. Israel is violating an agreement on water sharing

But that doesn't bother you in the least, does it?


Even though the water source runs through both Israel and Palestinian territory, Israel has laid claim to ALL the water and refuses to adhere to the agreement. Israel even put up barriers blocking Palestinian access to the water through Palestinian territory.

[shira]

2. the World Bank is so trustworthy regarding these water issues

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1239710832389

:eyes:

[Tempest]

4. Do you have an unbiased source?

Israel's Foreign Ministry is hardly a source I would use against the World Bank.

[TimesSquareCowboy]

5. Who would agree to a two-state solution when the state they get has no water?

[Shaktimaan]

7. simple.

Because the only way for the Palestinians to get a more secure share of water is through the advancement of the two state solution and diplomacy. Palestine's grim water situation has been greatly exacerbated by the conflict. Peace negotiations are the only sure way to guarantee that Palestine gains access to a secure water supply.

What you're saying makes no sense. It's like asking, "Who would agree to a peace treaty when they're being bombed?" The fact that the Palestinians aren't getting fair access to a shared water supply is a reason TO support a two state solution. Not a reason to oppose it.

[Tripmann]

8. Access to a reasonable supply of water where available is a basic human right..

..it should not be conditional on anything. Blockading, imprisonment, supply of water. Why doesn't Israel just go the whole hog, stick a fucking dome over them and start rationing fresh air. Our childrens children will learn about the suffering of the palestinians as the worst atrocity since the holocaust.

[Shaktimaan]

10. OK, here's the thing...

Our childrens children will learn about the suffering of the palestinians as the worst atrocity since the holocaust.

I can't vouch for what your grandkids might learn about the Palestinians but I'm pretty sure that my own will have the benefit of a decent education to mitigate nonsense like your comment here. I am shocked and saddened by the extent of your ignorance of world history, if you truly believe what you posted. You either know very little about anything that's occurred since the Holocaust, or about the Palestinians, or (as I'm inclined to believe) either of them. You really think that the Palestinian situation (while admittedly horrible) even remotely compares to that faced by victims of true genocide or oppression? The Cambodians during the rule of Pol Pot? Eastern Europe under Stalin? Life in Mao's China. Rwanda. Darfur. The list is a mile long. Have you really never heard of any of these things? How is that even possible?

So, here's the thing. I think that perhaps before we delve into the complex intricacies of Middle Eastern water distribution you might want to start yourself off with some more straightforward, general history. I would suggest that you refrain from passing judgment on any aspect of the IP conflict (and everything else) at least until you've read through a basic seventh grade social studies textbook and feel comfortable enough with the information in it to pass on to the eighth grade. Because right now you understood neither my post nor the problems it was addressing.

[shira]

16. "Our childrens children will learn about the suffering of the palestinians as the worst atrocity...

...since the holocaust".

==============================

:eyes:

This is the 'fruit' of the anti-zionist movement, folks!

It's as if nothing catastrophic is going on elsewhere, like oh....say the Sudan, Congo, China, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe.

The world's worst human rights abusers are successfully deflecting criticism and winning the propaganda war rather than being held to account, and groups like HRW, AI, the UN, the MSM, etc... are all going along for the ride in keeping a disproportionate amount of focus on the only Jewish state in the world.

"progressive heaven".....sigh....at least for far RW haters like Pat Buchanon, that is.

Not to mention this adds to the absolute dumbing down of society.

"Human rights" for some, but not for all.

oh well....as long as Israel is made to pay, who cares, right?

[LeftishBrit]

57. I agree with your first sentence...

and am completely against what Israel is doing here.

But calling it 'the worst atrocity since the holocaust' is so overblown that it may make it harder for the real point to be taken seriously.

The treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis - and by much of the rest of the world, including several Arab states - is appalling. But it is not worse than what happened in Iraq with the present war; Darfur; Congo; or going further back, Rwanda; Bosnia; Vietnam; Cambodia under Pol Pot; the Soviet Union under Stalin; Biafra; the bloodbath over Indian-Pakistani partition; etc. Or, for that matter, than the massive deprivation of access to clean water that occurs in many developing countries as a result of unjust and greedy world economic policies. Describing the Palestinians' situation as 'the worst' actually trivializes the sufferings of the people involved in all these many other conflicts and disasters.

[Vegasaurus]

64. Are you aware of real atrocities, going on at this very moment worldwide?

A genocide of massive proportions in Darfur

Rape of as many as 2/3 of the women in Chad.

20,000 killed in Sri Lanka.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

You really need to do a little reading before making idiotic statements.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. The question is why would ISRAEL agree to a 2-state solution. It's obvious they have no intention

anyway, so it's really moot. This is just one more reason why.

[Shaktimaan]

11. Good question... why would they?

You see, any 2 state agreement between the two would have to offer some sort of benefit to Israel before anyone there would consider it. Such as, for instance, oh I don't know... peace. Until the Palestinians are able to commit to that, you're absolutely right. Israel has no interest in aiding in the creation of another enemy state.

Seriously though, how can you write stuff like that with a straight face? Israel's agreed to many two state solutions already. Peel, the UN one, Camp David... all rejected by Palestine.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. The gov't of Israel talks out its ass. Says one thing and does the opposite.

Actions speak way louder than words.

[Shaktimaan]

13. Regardless...

until the Palestinians are willing to consider peace the odds of a 2 state solution will remain very poor.

Incidentally, how do you have any idea that Israel's acceptance of those myriad 2 state solutions in the past was anything other than entirely sincere? You couldn't because every single time the Palestinians rejected it. Usually followed by a war or intifada or other form of violent exclamation to further reinforce said rejection.

You do understand it's crazy to accuse Israel of having no intention of allowing 2 states when they agreed to every plan while the Palestinians rejected them all, right?

[shira]

14. PM.....was Arafat's rejection 9 yrs ago and call to more war good for the Palestinian people?

Just think, you could have been living in a sovereign Palestine for nearly 9 years now.

[Vegasaurus]

15. The Israel haters would prefer the Palestinians continue to live in misery

in order to promote their political agenda.

It's sad really.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. See Phil Weiss' piece about life in Gaza today.

Isn't it inspiring that people can battle injustice for so long, and not give up? Not collude with it? Not passively accept it? Says a lot about the human spirit.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. Tired old nonsense, long-since debunked. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. nt

[shira]

20. yeah....I guess the last 9 years and counting are better for Palestinians than their own state

[rateyes]

21. Don't you get tired of repeating that old canard?

Utter bullshit.

[shira]

22. so Arafat made the right call, no Palestine, more war....last 9 years have been worth it

So how has Arafat's decision 9 years ago worked out for the Palestinians you claim to care about?

[rateyes]

23. Take a look at the map proposed in 2000

That's not ONE Palestinian state, it's FOUR, and every damned one of them are surrounded by Israel, where Israel could have put up blockades just like Israel has done to Gaza. That "generous" offer :sarcasm: of Israel would have been suicide for Palestine.

Plus, Israel would, once again have said "fuck you" to the Palestinian refugees Israel forced into exile. Not to mention the "security measures" Israel wanted to place deep inside the new "Palestinian State." :puke:

So, to answer your question: Yes, Arafat made the right call. And, the last nine years wouldn't have been any better than they were.

[shira]

24. wrong map - and oh BTW, your mask is slipping

try these:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/bantustans.htm

I'm assuming you're aware the map you used is bullshit?

As for the refugees, a compensation package was offered for their resettlement within the new Palestine.

Let's get this straight - you want an end to the Jewish State so that not only do Palestinians get their own state within the W.Bank and Gaza, they eventually change the demographics within the green line and make that a Palestinian majority too?

And you think this will bring "peace", and Israel will agree to it?

:eyes:

It's hard to imagine that you really do want peace there. Ever.

As for the refugees, Arab states could give them the option NOW of becoming citizens in their own countries and end that suffering NOW.

But nice to see you think Arafat calling for a continuation of war was the right call 9 years ago, when Palestine could have been a reality. You really care for Palestinians.

Your mask is slipping.

[rateyes]

25. I don't wear masks. And, speaking of masks,

Let's go with your map, except that your map doesn't show the "Israeli Security Zone" (sounds like you're trying to hide something behind a mask) that, even if the rest of your map is correct, still turns Palestine into an island surrounded by Israel.

But, I have to say, Israel's offer of that bogus peace plan sure has been a useful propaganda tool.

And, on edit: The map you show is the one that would, if all worked according to plan, result after 25 years. What Israel offered, at first, was only about 75 percent, rather than 95 percent. Therefore, both maps are accurate, except that the one I posted would have been the first map. Plus, Israel wanted the right to place security zones well inside Palestine, and wanted Palestine to demilitarize.

[shira]

26. where are you getting your info? you realize 94-7% of W.Bank is impossible according to your maps?

Also, if your maps were accurate, Israel would have to trade a LOT more land.

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

look at the 2 maps near the top of the page.

the one on the right shows that "terrible" security zone a little east of Jericho.

THAT map was the one offered at Camp David, not the bantustan BS.

And where do you get that any map proposed by Israel/USA only takes effect after 25 years?

[rateyes]

28. ...

Territory
The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over all the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. They maintained that Resolution 242 calls for full Israeli withdrawal from these territories, which were captured in the Six-Day War, as part of a final peace settlement, although Israel disputes this interpretation. In the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators accepted the Green Line borders for the West Bank.

Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).<1><2><3> As a result, "Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements."<4> The West Bank would be separated by a road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians although Israel reserved the right to close the road for passage in case of emergency. The Palestinian position was that the annexations would block existing road networks between major Palestinian populations. In return, the Israelis would cede 1% of their territory in the Negev Desert to Palestine. The Palestinians rejected this proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

[shira]

29. more was offered in the Clinton Parameters, which Israel accepted and Arafat rejected

besides, at Camp David, Arafat never made as much as a counter-proposal. He didn't go to Camp David to negotiate a peace deal.

[rateyes]

30. What you fail to understand is that, by international law, Palestine

has legal RIGHT to ALL of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and a Right of Return. Therefore, any proposal short of that was a concession, NOT on the part of Israel, but on the part of Palestine.

The Clinton Parameters, which Israel accepted, amounted to a land grab by Israel, with no equal compensation of land from Israel to Palestine.

In other words, the only people asked to make concessions at Camp David in 2000 were the Palestinians.

The old canard that "Israel was willing to give 97% of the West Bank" is a load of crap. NONE of the West Bank is Israel's to "give."

[shira]

32. what nonsense.......international law says no such thing

there is no binding law that states what you say.

[rateyes]

35. Well, just like Israel and its staunchest supporters to disregard

international law. International law sees Israel as OCCUPIERS in the West Bank. The settlements in the West Bank are ILLEGAL settlements. The settlements can't be illegal if there is no law preventing them from being there. International law recognizes the Green line (1967) as the border between Israel and Palestine. International law says that occupiers can't build settlements as a land grab.

I told you that you failed to recognize the Palestinians RIGHT to the land. Israel wants to say, "The West Bank is ours, and therefore anything we agree to give as a Palestinian state is a concession on our part." That's bullshit.

Any land east of the green line that ends up in the hands of Israel will be a concession on Palestine's part.

[shira]

48. you keep moving the goal posts - make a claim, get refuted, and change your argument

First it was the stupid and bogus "bantustans" map.

Next, it was your "25 year claim" that wasn't any part of the Clinton Parameters accepted by Israel months after Camp David.

Finally, you wrote this:

"...has legal RIGHT to ALL of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and a Right of Return."

I challenged you on this one and you're now moving the goal posts again.

[rateyes]

51. The map I posted was the map offered by Barak at Camp David

The map you posted was the Clinton Paramaters. The map you posted still had territory turned over to Israel for which Palestine was to get no compensation.

I haven't moved a damn thing, including a goalpost. This discussion is in the context of what happened at Camp David in 2000, and why Arafat turned down the proposal.

I now give you this to read, if you dare. I read your article from Dennis Ross. Will you read this one?

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-dennis-rosss-the-missing-peace-the-inside-story-of-the-fight-for-middle-east-peace/

[Shaktimaan]

49. I see the problem here.

Your logic is flawed.

See, I was wondering about where you heard that whole, "Everything in the territories belongs to Palestine according to international law" also, so I wanted to see how you would respond to shira's question. But it turns out you're making a lot of assumptions that aren't based on solid ground.

Let's assume that what you're saying about the settlements is accurate... that they're all illegal and Israel has no right to build any of them. You're looking at that, (which is itself a debatable statement) and extrapolating from it that everything then must belong to the Palestinians by law as well. Which is really ridiculous. Just because Israel does not have the right to unilaterally annex the OPT does not mean that it automatically belongs to someone else.

There has never been any Palestinian state. Legally speaking, none of the land at all is considered to be Palestinian territory. It can't be. There is no such thing as sovereign Palestinian territory and there never has been yet. Also consider the fact that 20 years ago the land in question was claimed by Jordan, (and not by the Palestinians.) The idea of that land being used for a Palestinian state is relatively recent. In fact, up until 20 years ago all of the Arabs living there were Jordanian citizens. When the land was under Jordanian occupation no one was arguing that actually belonged to Palestine.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of the land in question is disputed. Both Israel and Palestine claim it. And they have to work it out. There is certainly no law that states that the green line defines the border between Israel and Palestine. Because Palestine does not exist yet. There is an agreement that very clearly states that the green line is not, and is not to ever be considered a border, which was signed by Israel, Jordan, Egypt, etc. So I don't know what you're talking about with that one.

Consider an area like the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was a Jewish majority city at the time of the war in 48 and for the previous 100 years or so. The Jewish Quarter had been Jewish for much longer than that though. But the UN Plan proposed that Jerusalem remain under UN jurisdiction. During the 48 war Jordan ethnically cleansed the territory they captured, expelling all of the Jews. Palestinians (with Jordanian citizenship) moved into the area following the war. (Incidentally, wouldn't that make them illegal settlers by your definition?) 20 years later Israel took control of East Jerusalem while fighting a war of self-defense. (Remember that Jordan attacked Israel in 67.) Jews return to the area. Now, you're trying to tell me that international law has guaranteed this parcel of land exclusively to Palestine? Based upon what? No treaty ever granted the area to them. None of the post 67 UN security council language even uses the word "Palestine" much less guarantees it anything. Yet you think that a law exists which places all of East Jerusalem under the sovereignty of an Arab state which does not yet, and has never, existed.

[rateyes]

50. Well, then, in your argument there is no occupied territory, right?

You are only occupiers if you don't own the land, right?

Under UN Resolutions marking the borders, who are the inhabitants, and who are the occupiers of the West Bank?

The UN hasn't changed those borders. The settlements are illegal.

This discussion is in context of the 2000 Camp David talks, and my point of contention is that ANY part of the West Bank given to Israel is, under those UN Resolutions (that I referred to as international law) is a concession of the Palestinians.

As far as your assertion that there has never been a "Palestine" there, what was that part of the world called prior to 1948? The British Mandate over "what?"

[shira]

53. the only sovereign state that existed in that area was Israel before Rome destroyed it 1939 years...

ago after occupying it. No other sovereign entity has existed there ever since Rome renamed Israel to "Palestine".

Calling them "Occupied territories" does not imply past or present Palestinian sovereignty. There's a reason "disputed territories" is often used to describe the same areas.

So tell us what you think about the Jews who were evicted from Jerusalem and replaced by Palestinian/Jordanian "settlers" between 1948-67.....you consider that Palestinian territory too? And were the Arab transplants who replaced them from 1948-67 "settlers" in your opinion?

[bemildred]

55. Well, the crusader states were there for a couple hundred years.

Do they not count?

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461546220/the_crusader_states.html

I would wager that one could come up with a number of other examples by rooting around in the period 500AD -- 1400AD, but I would think that the "Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem" ought to serve as a counter-example.

It is worth mentioning, too, that sovereignty in the modern sense did not exist prior to the Treaty of Westphalia:

"The Peace of Westphalia resulted from the first modern diplomatic congress and initiated a new order in central Europe based on the concept of state sovereignty. Until 1806, the regulations became part of the constitutional laws of the Holy Roman Empire. The Treaty of the Pyrenees, signed in 1659, ended the war between France and Spain and is often considered part of the overall accord."

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

[Shaktimaan]

69. Nope. not at all.

My argument is that just because Israel doesn't own the land is not a default argument that it belongs to Palestine. The UN hasn't. nor do they have the jurisdiction to, declare borders. No UN resolutions ever marked any borders.

And it's quite true that the state of Palestine has never existed.

[bemildred]

70. Ooops, my bad. nt

[wurzel]

75. Are you suggesting the Palestinians are a stateless people?

[Ken Burch]

68. It can't be legitimate for Israel to end up keeping large chunks of the West Bank

And it can't be acceptable to insist that the Palestinians accept a non-contiguous West Bank. History shows only contiguous states can work.

[Vegasaurus]

27. Palestinians could have had a good state in 1947

but they chose war instead.

They have continued to lose over the last 60 years.

2000 was the best offer they may ever get since the original one.

They keep rejecting offers because they want ALL of Israel.

So, they live in perpetual misery.

[rateyes]

31. If Israel ever wants to live in peace, it will get the hell out of

the occupied territories. How much of your state would you be willing to give to another?

[IDFbunny]

33. There's no reason to believe that.

There was no peace prior to the occupation and the Palestinians are quite clear that the very existence of Israel in any shape or form is unacceptable. It is only Palestinian apologists that promise peace based on '67 borders.

[rateyes]

36. How do you know until you try?

Reason to believe it or not, as you called the situation, it is an OCCUPATION---which means you just conceded the fact that Israel has NO FUCKING RIGHT TO BE THERE. So, Israel should get the hell out. And, even if there is LITTLE chance of peace if they do, there is NO chance of peace until they do.

[Shaktimaan]

39. Because it has been tried.

Israel ceded territory during the Oslo years. They withdraw from Gaza. Every time Israel made concessions it resulted in exponentially reduced security and a large increase in terrorism. Which ultimately resulted in increased hardship for the Palestinians as well.

The groups who are attacking Israel by taking advantage of these concessions have been very clear about their intentions. Hamas has promised to continue attacking Israel, regardless of what Israel does regarding the occupation. And they have thus far lived up to that promise. All of Israel's concessions have led to LESS peace for everyone. Especially the Palestinians.

Besides that, even if your assertion that Israel is strictly occupying the OPT and none of it qualifies as disputed, that certainly doesn't mean that Israel has no right to be there. The way it works is peace first, then occupation ends. Legally, at least. Israel has no obligation to end any occupation if it puts their nation at risk, which your suggestion would.

[shaayecanaan]

43. So you advocate that Israel should reoccupy

southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip? After all, if withdrawal results in "exponentially reduced security" then surely reoccupation results in "exponentially enhanced security"?

I'll put to you the question that so far no one has been able to answer satisfactorily:-

If not two states, then what?

[Shaktimaan]

46. No, of course not.

Just because the withdrawal from Lebanon did not result in a peaceful border doesn't mean that continuing the occupation was a viable alternative. Of course in the West Bank Israel had to essentially reverse the policies that Oslo brought about. Checkpoints were reinstated and the barrier was built to mitigate terrorism. None of that means that I think Israel should start building settlements in Gaza again though.

If not two states, then what?

I think that two states is the only really viable solution. From Israel's perspective I guess that the most preferable solution would be for Jordan to annex the WB and Egypt do the same with Gaza. But I don't think that solution is particularly any more realistic than the crazy "single state" of Israel/Palestine that some people seem to support.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. No!

Israel has never tried ending the occupation.

It has tried ending parts of the occupation while maintaining other parts, at which point the Palestinians continued to try to end the other parts.

If you stand on both my feet and then take your weight off one, it is not logical to assume that because I am still trying to shove you away at that point I will continue to do so if you get off the other.

Reducing the occupation almost certainly won't make peace, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, as you say.

Ending it almost certainly would, however.

[shira]

54. Yes!

since 1967, Israel has made peace with Egypt and given back the Sinai, which consisted of most territory Israel took in the 6-day war. They unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon as well, but in the latter cases those withdrawals led to an increase in terror attacks.

Do you REALLY believe that if the Gaza withdrawal led to FAR less terror and WARMER relations between the PA and Israel, there wouldn't be great internal pressure WITHIN Israel to also withdraw from most of the W.Bank (stipulated within the Clinton Parameters)?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. "Most of" won't cut it.

78% of the disputed territories lies within the Green Line. Israel withdrawing from "most of" the remaining 22% will not make a Palestinian state viable.

No matter what the response to the withdrawal from Gaza had been, internal pressure to withdraw from the "all or nearly all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem" that will be necessary for a viable Palestinian state and for peace, and which Israel has never contemplated doing, would not have resulted.

[IDFbunny]

60. Isreal IS occupied territory according to Palestinians

No Palestinian has said having full control of WBG would be enough for peace. ALL of Israel is occupied Palestine. All the Jews must be purged. That is the position of Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, and the overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Arabs. Take their word for it.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. What a nasty and hatemongering post that is...

Seriously, you should try and learn about Arabs and Palestinians before painting such nasty generalisations about them....

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. Poll, 74% of Palestinian and 78% of Israelis would accept the two-state solution:

Clearly the majority of Palestinians who voted for Hamas or Israelis who voted for one of the rejectionist parties did so for reasons other than rejection of the two-state solution.

"The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are willing to live alongside each other peacefully in separate states, according to an independent poll released on Wednesday.

Results of the poll, commissioned by the grass-roots OneVoice Movement, indicate that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis are willing to accept a two-state solution.

The margin of error on the Palestinian side was 4.1 percent and 4.5 percent on the Israeli side, the group said.

Polling was conducted over the phone in Israel and was done in person in the Palestinian territories. OneVoice said the poll counters fears that the two-state solution is losing support in Israel and the Occupied Territories."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080267.html

Palestinians Clearly Prefer Two-State Solution

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/12493

"Many residents of the Gaza Strip and West Bank think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be solved if two sovereign countries can be established, according to a poll by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Center. 52.4 per cent of respondents prefer a two-state solution.

Conversely, 23.6 per cent of respondents would establish a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights."

Polling Data

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can't be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli
state and a Palestinian state
52.4%

Bi-national state on all
of historic Palestine
23.6%

No solution
9.4%

One Palestinian state
7.4%

Islamic state
2.9%

Others
2.0%

Don't know
1.0%

No answer
1.3%

[shira]

62. dubious polling

Let's see the percentage of Palestinians who'd accept 2 states with no RoR within the green line.

These polls mean different things to both groups of people.

If Israelis were polled about 2-states WITH a RoR (meaning 3 Palestinian states), the percentage for such an agreement would probably be in the single digits.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. you are legitimizing hate and permanent war and ethnic cleansing!

If what you say is true, than the future holds nothing but permanent war and endless blood baths and full ethnic cleansing .

Jews have lived at peace in the Middle East with their Arab neighbors for thousands of years. From the standpoint of the vast overwhelming majority of Arab people and specifically Palestinian people there is no reason whatsoever why the future cannot be one of living side by side in peace.

Every measurement of Palestinian opinion and Arab opinion for decades shows that that vast majority of Palestinians and Arabs want to live with peace between Jews, Arabs and Christians.

"The vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians are willing to live alongside each other peacefully in separate states, according to an independent poll released on Wednesday.

Results of the poll, commissioned by the grass-roots OneVoice Movement, indicate that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis are willing to accept a two-state solution.

The margin of error on the Palestinian side was 4.1 percent and 4.5 percent on the Israeli side, the group said.

Polling was conducted over the phone in Israel and was done in person in the Palestinian territories. OneVoice said the poll counters fears that the two-state solution is losing support in Israel and the Occupied Territories."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080267.html

Palestinians Clearly Prefer Two-State Solution

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/12493

"Many residents of the Gaza Strip and West Bank think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be solved if two sovereign countries can be established, according to a poll by the Jerusalem Media & Communication Center. 52.4 per cent of respondents prefer a two-state solution.

Conversely, 23.6 per cent of respondents would establish a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights."


Polling Data

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can't be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli
state and a Palestinian state
52.4%

Bi-national state on all
of historic Palestine
23.6%

No solution
9.4%

One Palestinian state
7.4%

Islamic state
2.9%

Others
2.0%

Don't know
1.0%

No answer
1.3%

=======================================================================
=======================================================================

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002. This has is a restatement of a 1996 statement unanimously adopted and supported by every single Arab state as well as the PLO. This is the restatement of an earlier position adopted in 1996. In fact this has been the unanimous position of every Arab state going back much, much longer

The Arab Peace Initiative

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government,

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel,

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.


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

For purposes of comparison, the following is an earlier draft discussed by Arab foreign ministers on 25 March, 2002, in advance of the summit:

The Council of the Arab League, which convenes at the level of a summit on March 27-28, 2002 in Beirut, affirms the Arab position that achieving just and comprehensive peace is a strategic choice and goal for the Arab states.

After the Council heard the statement of Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in which he called for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel, and that Israel declares its readiness to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories in compliance with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 and Security Council resolution 1397, enhanced by the Madrid conference and the land-for-peace principle, and the acceptance of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, the Council calls on the Israeli government to review its policy and to resort to peace while declaring that just peace is its strategic option.

The Council also calls on Israel to assert the following:

Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied parts of south Lebanon to the June 4, 1967 lines.

To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194.

To accept an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem (al-Quds al-Sharif) as its capital in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1397.

In return, the Arab states assert the following:

To consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and to enter into a peace treaty with Israel to consolidate this.

To achieve comprehensive peace for all the states of the region.

To establish normal relations within the context of comprehensive peace with Israel.

The Council calls on the Israeli government and the Israelis as a whole to accept this initiative to protect the prospects of peace and to spare bloodshed so as to enable the Arab states and Israel to coexist side by side and to provide for the coming generations a secure, stable and prosperous future.

It calls on the international community with all its organisations and states to support the initiative.

The Council calls on its presidency, its secretary general and its follow-up committee to follow up on the special contacts related to this initiative and to support it on all levels, including the United Nations, the United States, Russia, the European Union and the Security Council.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

[shira]

67. check out MEMRI sometime, Doug......you may learn something there

[Indenturedebtor]

74. Yes - they want the Jews to live in their Muslim state n/t

[shaayecanaan]

42. Lovely short sentences those...

Like Haiku poetry. Here, let me have a go:-

"The cat sat on the mat.

His hostage, me, appalls.

He seems to have no shame, you see.

The way he licks his balls."

Maybe you could write a Dr Seuss version of the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

[Ken Burch]

71. Camp David was NOT a "two state solution"

Begin insisted that there not even be the mention of a possibility of a Palestinian state in Camp David. Under that accord, all the Palestinians were going to get was "autonomy". And we all know they'd have had about as much autonomy as China gives Tibet.

At the time Camp David was being negotiated, virtually everyone who called themselves "pro-Israel" demonized the very suggestion of the creation of a Palestinian state-even though it was always clear that there couldn't possibly be peace without one. Support of a Palestinian state was equated with being "anti-Israel" and essentially equated with antisemitism.
Jesse Jackson's support of Palestinian self-determination(even though he also always made it clear that he supported Israel's right to exist)was the real reason he was denied almost all white support in his presidential campaigns.

[shira]

72. He meant Camp David, July 2000.

[Ken Burch]

73. Oh. Well, he wasn't clear on that.

My point does stand about the original Camp David and the ridiculous limits Begin put on the accord.

[TimesSquareCowboy]

34. What you're saying makes no sense - I'll give you what you want, and then you'll give me water?

I don't guess the Israelis are using water as a bargaining chip. They are using to enrich themselves.

[rateyes]

37. That's how Israel always negotiates. "We will return what belongs to you...

in exchange for giving us something else that belongs to you, and then call ourselves "generous."

[Shaktimaan]

40. You are confusing motive and consequence.

It is very easy to assume that every consequence of the conflict is part of a planned Israeli attempt at subjugation but the truth is usually far more complex. You're looking at situations and working backwards to assign blame based on preconceived ideas about the conflict instead of looking at the history as it occurred. Beyond that, it is not very fair to expect that two nations that are essentially at a state of war to solve the problem of a limited, shared resource with the same effectiveness as two allies would.

That said, Israel has as vested an interest in protecting the water supply as the Palestinians. Any damage that happens to the water table because of the conflict affects both nations equally. Because of this the agreements related to water were honored right through the intifada, perhaps the only example of Oslo that survived.

The most severe water problem is in Gaza, so let's use that as an example. Gaza always has a water problem. But only recently has it become so severe. Before Oslo Israel controlled the water supply, which came from either the coastal aquifer or from Israeli plants. But Oslo turned many water issues over to the Palestinians to manage themselves. Hundreds of wells were drilled without PA permission, straining the water table. This eventually resulted in the water quality decreasing as it allowed sea water to enter, a huge problem now.

Still, during Oslo the possibility of peace opened up opportunities for these chronic water problems to be addressed on an international scale. USAID began constructing a desalinization plant exclusively for Gaza's use. Unfortunately it was discontinued in 2003 after a few workers were killed by Palistinian militants. The Hamas takeover exacerbated the problem on many fronts. For instance, the construction of Qassams requires pipes leading to a shortage of needed materials for their infrastructure. This has lead to problems with sewage contaminating their groundwater. Israel is understandably reluctant to provide the pipes they need since they could just as easily be used to make rockets instead.

When Israel withdraw from Gaza in 2005 they left the sewage processing plant for the Palestinians to use, along with the technical expertise required to operate it. What's also needed though are large tanks of chlorine which the Israelis took with them, (to be eventually turned over to the PA, pending their request which never arrived), but they are probably very reluctant to make them available to the Gazans at this point, for obvious reasons. So Israel's piping in millions of cubic meters of water, even though they aren't required to by their agreement.

I'm trying to offer you examples of why conflict complicates the water issue beyond "oh, the Israelis are stealing their water!" Most of these problems can't be easily addressed by Israel doing anything differently; at least until some kind of peace is secured. They are the result of poor management on the part of the Palestinians (particularly Hamas) and of the conflict itself. Effects like the damage done to the coastal aquifer don't benefit Israel in any way. In fact, it's a very serious issue for Israel as well as Palestine; it remains Israel's problem if the Palestinians don't have enough water... that's the same groundwater that Israel uses after all. If it's contaminated or polluted then it's no good to anyone.

Peace alone offers the opportunities to solve the problem that the Palestinians face. Their government does not possess the abilities or resources to effectively manage a shrinking water supply for a growing population by themselves, especially while trying to wage a war against Israel, (which only brings increased destruction to their infrastructure.) And Israel does not have the ability to "save" them, especially if doing so would cost a high price in terrorism.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. That's garbage. Access to water is a basic human right...

And when Israeli settlers, living in settlements that are illegal under international law, are allowed far more per person than Palestinians, there's something very wrong.

Sheez, maybe you think it'd be a good idea to cut down how much food they have too...

[Shaktimaan]

44. What is garbage exactly?

That resolving the conflict would help the Palestinians access a more secure supply of clean water?
Or that the two state solution should not be rejected on the basis that Palestine is receiving less water than Israel?
Which opinion do you think is garbage, violet?

And when Israeli settlers, living in settlements that are illegal under international law, are allowed far more per person than Palestinians, there's something very wrong.

OK, I would say that something is very wrong if the Palestinians do not have access to enough clean water, regardless of whatever Israeli settlers are doing or what is happening with the settlement situation. Actually, I don't see what settlers have to do with this topic at all. Something which normally I wouldn't bother commenting on but you JUST finished criticizing me in another thread for mentioning a subject that wasn't directly referenced in the OP. Yet here you are going on about settlers and how settlements are illegal under international law and blah blah whatever. Did you even read the OP? You sound like you're saying that the legality of the settlements should have some sort of influence over how much water people are allowed to have. That's pretty fucked up Violet. Access to water is a basic human right.

Sheez, maybe you think it'd be a good idea to cut down how much food they have too...

Hahaha. So let me get this straight. I commented in support of a two state solution and ending the conflict as a means of ensuring a more adequate water supply for the Palestinians and you've interpreted that to mean that I most likely want to starve them?

You know v, call me crazy but sometimes I get the idea that it isn't what I write that you oppose so much as it's just me that you have a problem with.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Yr apparent belief that access to water isn't a basic human right...

Which is why access to water isn't something that's dependent on anything at all. You seem to think it's fine to wait as long as it takes for the conflict to be resolved....

How exactly is pointing out in a thread about water in the West Bank that settlers in the West Bank are allocated much more water than Palestinians are not related to the topic? Of course it is....

On yr last sentence. I think yr being just a tad dramatic there. Don't know you from a bar of soap, and as with most folk I encounter online, don't really want to. I comment on what you say in yr posts, disagree with a fair bit, and point out why. I've noticed though that some people don't really appreciate being disagreed with, but that's not my problem....

[excess_3]

6. the WORLD BANK, known for their truthful reporting

yeah sure

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. Are you saying that Israel isn't stealing water from the West Bank? Or that the World

Bank has the degree of theft wrong?

[excess_3]

45. unknowable ... unless you are measuring every drop ...

and then only you would know

[Shaktimaan]

47. That is so weird.

I just re-read the article and I couldn't find the spot where the World Bank asserted that Israel was stealing water from the Palestinians. Can you point that part out to me please?

[azurnoir]

38. B'Tselem's report

The UN’s sixteenth World Water Day, being commemorated today, is dedicated to cross-border waters. Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank have two trans-border water systems. One is the aboveground Jordan water basin, which Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon also share. Israel prevents Palestinians any access to this water reservoir. The other is the Mountain Aquifer underground water system. The Mountain Aquifer, which crosses the Israeli and Palestinian borders, is the primary, largest, and highest quality water source for Israelis and Palestinians, providing 600 million cubic meters of water a year. Israel uses eighty percent of the output for its needs and allocates the remainder to the Palestinians.
Discriminatory and unfair division of the shared water sources creates a chronic water shortage in the West Bank. Average per capita daily water consumption of Palestinians in the West Bank is two-thirds of the amount recommended by the World Health Organization. Due to the shortage, many Palestinians have to buy water from tankers at three to six times higher than regular prices, forcing poor families to spend up to one-fifth of their income on water, compared to the slightly more than one percent that average-income Israeli families spend on water.

http://www.btselem.org/english/water/20090322_international_water_day.asp

[Idealism]

58. This is news? Been going on for years...