You have got to be kidding with regard to the PR claim, Ricky. The Palestinians have been very effective with this water claim. The question is Ricky did Palestinian water consumption in the West Bank rise in the West Bank from about 120 million cubic meters to 190 million meters in the past 20 years? Are the Palestinians trying to drill wells that they are allowed to drill? Are they building waste treatment plants? Are they trying to improve their pipe system to reduce the loss rate of 33 percent? Finally, are the Palestinian estimates of a population 2.4 million for the West Bank accurate? If their water consumption is rising and they're doing little if anything to improve their water problems, then it is hard to be too sympathetic. I look forward to your response (and making the biased source claim is a weak response--if the Israeli source makes a claim that nowhere can you find a response to on the Palestinian side, what do you think the truth is?)
Water is life. If the Palestinian claim that Israel was not allowing them sufficient water were true, well, that would be troubling. But you dig into the claim and it does not appear to be warranted. Given how poorly the Palestinians are managing their water situation, the Palestinians are almost certainly doing better with regard to water than they would have done without Israeli occupation. Their situation compares favorably with other Arab countries, for example.

By the way the Wikipedia source I just listed (and you decided to quote from) was cited by Owen. I listed it because I referred to it. But it is clearly biased towards the Palestinian version.

freeman3

By the way the Wikipedia source I just listed (and you decided to quote from) was cited by Owen. I listed it because I referred to it. But it is clearly biased towards the Palestinian version

.

Wikipedia lists all of the sources for their information.They include:
- WHO/Unicef
Euro-Mediterranean Water Information System
The World Bank
Heinrich Böll Foundation.
The Environmentalist
the palestinian water authority
The israel water authority
MedWetCoast Project
amnesty international
Cambridge Review of International Affairs
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (CEJISS)
International Symposium on Groundwater Sustainability
UNICEF
USAID
and the article you used as a source that used the Israelis Water Authority as its sole source.

Are you saying all of these organizations take the Palestinian Viewpoint?
But that the Israelis Water Authority is a neutral source? And to be more greatly trusted?


By the way; the Wikipedia Article with all those sources starts out with this claim, and uses those sources to support their claim:

Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories are characterized by severe water shortage and are highly influenced by the Israeli occupation. The water resources of Palestine are fully controlled by Israel and the division of groundwater is subject to provisions in the Oslo II Accord.

freeman3

You have got to be kidding with regard to the PR claim, Ricky. The Palestinians have been very effective with this water claim

.
When you say effective what do you mean?
They haven't gotten any more water access. Israel still expands the security zones at will. And their has been no movement from Israel on providing a path to a 2 state solution...
I'd say whatever effect they've had it hasn't created any tangible results.
Making the world more aware of their plight, which might be the only effect, hasn't resulted in much has it?

None of those sources (apparently) address the population of the West Bank, whether Palestinian water consumption is rising, or any of the other questions I posed. Try finding a source, any source that will answer those questions. They are all using the Palestinian supplied population figures and none of them address the other salient questions I posed, so what good are they? And if they do address those issues, point it out and then I will be happy to consider them. Right now you have anecdotal descriptions of water problems inflated because population figures are inflated, comparisons to Israeli water use which is not really relevant, and complaints that Israeli data is biased. That's not much of a case. If you have one, make it.

Ah the weeds of nit picking the numbers... One doesn't need to argue the inherent inequities of water use by calculating to the drop, the water use... One needs to look at how water is managed and sold in the west Bank.

Water in th West Bank is controlledby the Israeli–Palestinian Joint Water Committee.

In a comprehensive 2013 study by the British researcher Jan Selby, the functioning of the Joint Water Committee during the periode 1995-2008 was analysed. Selby found that the ″cooperation has led neither to peace nor sustainable development.″ Instead, ″’cooperation’ has been an instrument of Israeli political control and even colonisation. ″Israeli-Palestinian water ‘cooperation’ – in the form of a Joint Water Committee (JWC) – has been associated with a significant worsening of the Palestinian water supply crisis. Since the establishment of the JWC, Israel has vetoed every single Palestinian application for new wells into the largest shared water resource, the Western Basin of the Mountain Aquifer, and has delayed approval of other well applications for up to eight years.″ In contrast, ″The Palestinian Water Authority has approved every single Israeli application for new water supply facilities for West Bank settlements. This has been done with the knowledge of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and constitutes the first such evidence of the PA lending its official consent to parts of Israel’s settlement expansion programme. International donors have not challenged Israel’s use of the JWC as an instrument of control.″[7]

The researcher concluded, after studying a 13-year period of the Joint Water Committee's functioning, that the committee not only represents another dimension of asymmetry (between Israel and the Palestinians) and of Israel’s ability to coerce, limit and impose conditions on the Palestinians, but also that its activity has enabled the entrenchment of Israel’s takeover of the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority approved major projects to expand the water infrastructure in Israeli settlements after it was made clear that otherwise Israel would not allow the PA to repair and improve the water infrastructure serving its own population.[8]

According to the PA, "the main reason why settlement related water supply lines have been approved in the past is that most Palestinian communities in the West Bank receive their water supply from the lines that feed the Israeli settlements. Due to the need to supply water to these communities and the Israeli refusal to approve new systems solely serving Palestinian communities, the Palestinian hand was forced to agree to projects of such nature. Also the Israeli side has always conditioned the approval of Palestinian projects on approval by Palestine of Israeli projects". The Palestinians expected that the settlements would be evacuated following a permanent status agreement and that any approvals thus would only be of temporary nature until evacuation occurs. Since 2010, however, the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) has refused to approve projects in the settlements, leading to a stalemate in the work of the committee.[8]

If Palestinians want to buy water trucked in there is only one source . An Israelis nationalized company.
The Israelis also control the quantities of rain water collected by the Palestinian Villagers. According to the PWA, the Israeli Army more often destroys the small Palestinian water tankers and the surface rainwater collection wells

Construction of a Salfit sewage treatment plant was initially approved in early 1997 by JWC and IDF, but the construction was ordered to stop in 1998, because on that location it would hinder the intended expansion of the nearby settlement Ariel. In 2001, Israel paid the German donors a fraction of the financial damage as compensation. In 2007, the IDF proposed to convey the waste from the settlements to Israel. A Palestinian treatment plant would “create additional environmental hazards and damage the landscape”, thus the army proposed to treat the Palestinian sewage also in Israel. The Palestinian Water Authority rejected this, as it would have to pay for the treatment and loose the recycled water. Ariel, however, continued to discharge its untreated wastewater in the vicinit

y
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2 ... _Committee

freeman3 wrote:Condescension is duly noted.

When you claim the article I linked to had no figures on water per capita, when it clearly does. You may not agree with those figures, but that is a different question.

Either you had not read the article properly (in which case the condescension is deserved because you made an assertion without bothering to check it is true), or you had but decided that the numbers were lies (in which case, I apologise, but ask why you could not explain this instead of making a blanket assertion).

It is difficult to get unbiased figures because this is a politicized issue and the data can be so easily manipulated. But here is what I have (admittedly tentatively) been able to find out:

(1) First, we have the Oslo II accords. The Palestinians were consuming 120 million cubic meters at that time on the West Bank ( I saw another source saying 118 million ) so that figure does not seem to be in dispute. The Palestinians agreed in Oslo II with an allowance of 70-80 million cubic meters for future increases in consumption. The article RJ cited indicated Palestinian consumption had risen to 190 million cubic meters by 2010. I saw another source that said Palestinian consumption had risen to 178 million by 2006. The Wikipedia article agrees with the 118 million figure. But it cites a 199 million figure for the West Bank and Gaza for 2012 that only includes a 93.9 million figure for the West Bank (which conflicts with the 118 million figure). Since the article did not explain this discrepancy this figure does not seem particularly reliable (or maybe something is missing)

What was your other source?

I found this from B'Tselem: http://www.btselem.org/water/discrimina ... ter_supply

In practice, however, Palestinians have access to less water than was agreed upon. Extraction from pre-existing drills currently yields only 87 mcm of water a year, rather than the agreed-upon 118 mcm. The reasons for this include: 1) Technical problems and outdated equipment; 2) Drop of water level at several locations; 3) Overestimation of the available underground water when the agreement was signed in 1995. Independent Palestinian drilling in the eastern basin of the Mountain Aquifer was never developed as planned, due both to Israeli restrictions and to failed test attempts. The amount of water sold to Palestinians by Mekorot (national Israeli water company) has doubled from 25 mcm a year in the agreement to a current 53 mcm. Even so, there is a considerable gap between the amount of water that was supposed to be available to the Palestinian Authority under the agreement, and present-day availability. Almost twenty years after the Oslo Accords were signed, the Palestinians have access to only about 75% of the 200 mcm of water they were supposed to receive annually by the year 2000.

(2) With regard to per capita consumption the big differences between Israeli and Palestinian sources have to do with the size of the population. The study that RJ's article cited had the West Bank population at 1.4 million while Owen 's source used a figure of 2.4 million. The Israeli study notes that the 2.4 million figure includes 250,000 Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem and are thus connected to the Israeli water supply and 150,000 Palestinians who have immigrated to Israel through marriage and again are not connected to the Palestinian water system. The figure also includes 400,000 Palestinians who immigrated abroad. I think there is substantial reasons to doubt the 2.4 million estimate in which case the per capita figures cited in the Wikipedia article are doubtful as well.

And the study seems to be controversial in Israel itself.:

"What this group is doing borders on crime, it's a macro deception," said Prof. Arnon Soffer, a geography professor and a severe critic of the American-Israel Demographic Research Group . A 2004 meeting between Soffer and then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was considered a milestone in Sharon's decision to embark on the Gaza disengagement.

In 2007, Soffer co-wrote an article called "The Tricky Million-Person Gap." According to the piece, all 21 assumptions of the American-Israeli group are flawed.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... m-1.532703

(3) the 129,000 liters per capita / year figure is correct if the 1.4 million population estimate is correct. The study again estimates that Palestinian consumption (again based on the 1.4 million estimate) meets the 100 liters/day per capita threshold.

And if the water supply really is 180 MCM. The B'Tselem article suggests it is lower - about 150 MCM, including 50MCM sold by Merokot (as opposed to the 25MCM that were agreed)

(4) The Palestinians are not drilling wells that would increase their water supply that they are allowed to do under Oslo II.

See above - one of the main proposed sources did not get past restrictions and testing. It seems that it is not as good a source as was thought back then. I wonder if the water table is at the same level as before.

(5) The Palestinians are drilling illegal wells in violation of Oslo II.

Israel is in violation of Oslo II on this as well. But by all means show which ones are in violation of Oslo. If they are in the Eastern Aquifer then I believe they would be covered by Annex III, Article 40 (Water and Sewage), Item 7 (additional water) b. (Palestinian responsibility) part (6).

(6) The Palestinians have a high leakage rate of 33 percent due to bad pipes but are not doing anything about it.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20israeli-palestinian%20interim%20agreement%20-%20annex%20iii.aspx#app-40

Fixing these would be expensive and take a long time. We see the same issues here in the developed UK when privatised water companies have shocking levels of water loss - it would be worth their while fixing the leaks, but they are taking a long time to do it. If it's hard for them, I suspect it's hard for the Palestinian water authority. Which, by the way, is not wholly controlled by the PA, but jointly with Israel.

And perhaps this is salient:

The major projects to expand the water infrastructure in West Bank settlements, undertaken between 1995 and 2008, were carried out with the approval of the Palestinian Authority after it was made clear that otherwise Israel would not allow the PA to repair and improve the water infrastructure serving its own population. Dr. Jan Selby of the international relations department at Britain’s University of Sussex found this to be the case after studying the minutes of 142 of the 176 meetings of the Israeli-Palestinian Joint Water Committee that took place during that 13-year period.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-e ... m-1.513694

It seems that the PA is in the position of having to do a deal to be about to repair its infrastructure. Given that most of the West Bank is not actually under PA control, but the IDF (Zone C), they can't just send guys into those areas to fix old pipes.

(7) The Palestinians are not building water treatment plants

I see that ricky has already found that when they wanted to, Israel blocked the site and decided it would be better to treat the waste in Israel.

(8) The lack of water getting to certain Palestinian rural areas may be due to the lack of political power that those areas have within the Palestinian community and of course they can be used as examples of Israeli oppression

No. it's because the water network needs a lot of investment to reach remote places.

Assuming that Palestinians have seen an increase to about 190 million cubic liters from 118 million cubic liters on the West Bank in about 20 years (and I have seen nothing to contradict this)I think that Palestinian complaints of Israel depriving them of water to be at best vastly overstated. And instead of trying to fix any problems they just seek to blame Israel.

Both sides are to work together on water. And the JWC is a Joint committee of Israel & Palestine. It approves proposals for projects to take water to settlements at a much higher rate than it approves projects for Palestinians. It has often approved projects, only for the IDF as occupying army to deny them. You don't think that is a frustration? The meetings of the JWC suggest that the PA fixing the problem has to be granted by Israel.

There are several sources that suggest that the supply is less than 190 MCM. They are indeed contradictory to your assertion. You just don't believe them. If you still claim you can't 'see' them, should I put them all up again but in bold?

Danivon:

Well, that is part of the trade-off of wanting to have an explicit 'Jewish state' as opposed to a state with Jews in it. Either you ensure there are no minorities, or you accept that there will be and that they may not be too happy about being in a state explicitly based on a religion they don't follow and for a people they are not members of.

Israel is a Jewish state. That is fundamental. If you believe that is fair, which I do, then other conclusions follow. However, if you have a problem with that formulation, then you will come to a different conclusion on a range of issues.

Danivon

So essentially, Israel's great moral good of taking in people from around the world is basically not about their need or humanity alone, but conditional on their Jewishness?

It's not whether Israel has a 'responsibility' to take in refugees from wartorn neighbouring states. It's whether it can claim to be a moral beacon while refusing to take in refugees because they are not of the right 'type'.

And I choose Syria and Lebanon because Israel is for many there the closest foreign safe country (especially when both are embroiled in conflict, which is a potential now), so another country may well be more amenable but would be harder to get to.

"Moral beacon" is a bit strong. I do think that Israel is acting morally by taking in over 2 million refugees over these many years. They cannot solve the problems of the Arab world. Perhaps if there had been more kindness over these last 100 years they would try harder. But there are millions of refugees from Syria and Iraq, etc. Israel is a small and dense country. Has anyone even established that the refugees would like to go to Israel? Isn't that a prerequisite?

BTW, Israel has taken in non-Jewish refugees.

Danivon:

Did the Intafada mean that Orthodox Jews suddenly needed to start spitting on Christians? http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Mouths-filled-with-hatred

Some Christians, particularly the more Evangelical, feel that their freedom to practice as they wish is restricted and can provoke violence: http://www.christianpost.com/news/chris ... it-113877/

Neither is state sanctioned, but it is not being stopped either.

Certainly spitting is disgusting; I explained that to my son earlier today. Parents should discipline their children. I don't know whether it rises to the level of policing. However, that doesn't mean there isn't freedom of religion. I've had worse done to me in the US because of my religion, but we still have religious freedom here. The UK also has some troubling issues of anti-Semitism, and sometime they are not being "stopped". In fact, per Wikipedia there were over 100 incidents in July alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemiti ... ngdom#2014
But no one here is claiming there isn't freedom of religion in the UK.

By the way, I just read this today about a Greek Orthodox Priest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemiti ... ngdom#2014

"Across the Middle East, in the last ten years, 100,000 Christians have been murdered each year. That means that every five minutes a Christian is killed because of his faith," reported Nadaf. "Those who can escape persecution at the hands of Muslim extremists have fled. ...Those who remain, exist as second if not third class citizens to their Muslim rulers."

Nadaf continued "in the Middle East today, there is one country where Christianity is not only not persecuted, but affectionately granted freedom of expression, freedom of worship and security. ...It is Israel, the Jewish State. Israel is the only place where Christians in the Middle East are safe."

The water conversation is very complicated. I hope to look into it. I appreciate that others are trying to sort it out.

Just on this one post by Ricky:

So is the Israel Water Authority likely to be a neutral source of information? Presented in a neutral manner?
Or is a source like The Human Rights council more likely to be neutral?

Neither of these sources are neutral. The UN Human Rights Council is widely considered to be anti-Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... cil#Israel

As of 2014, Israel had been condemned in 50 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006—the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. The 50 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).[50] By April 2007, the Council had passed eleven resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[51] Toward Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern".[51]

The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council's special rapporteur on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organisation of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.[52]

The Special Rapporteur on the question of Palestine to the previous UNCHR, the current UNHRC and the General Assembly was, between 2001 and 2008, John Dugard. Bayefski quotes him as saying that his mandate is to "investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians".[53] Dugard was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.[54][55][56] Like his predecessor, Falk's mandate only covers Israel’s human rights record.[57] The Palestinian Authority has informally asked Falk to resign, among other reasons due to viewing him as "a partisan of Hamas". Falk disputes this and has called the reasons given "essentially untrue".[58] In July 2011, Richard Falk posted a cartoon some critics has described as anti-Semitic onto his blog. The cartoon depicted a bloodthirsty dog with the word "USA" on it wearing a kippah, or Jewish headcovering.[59][60][61][62] In response, Falk was heavily criticized by world leaders in the United States and certain Europen countries.[63] The United States called Falk's behavior "shameful and outrageous" and "an embarrassment to the United Nations", and officially called on him to resign.

Owen, go back and read what I said. I said there was nothing in the articles addressing the 129,000 liter argument. You had a long quote from that Wikipedia but that quote did not address the 129,000 figure. You did not directly address that claim in your argument. So, what, you are expecting me to go through your article that you did not cite for a proposition opposing the 129,000 figure and find that out myself? I see nothing wrong with your pointing out that you did cite to an article that has some figures to dispute the 129,000 claim but condescension...come on.

Your latest argument starts talking about the need to bold your arguments, apparently so that I can follow them. The 93 million figure you had cited for the West Bank seemed to conflict with a prior cited 118 million cubic meter figure from the same article so I discounted it. You now have come up some arguments that look interesting. You had not made the arguments before (except for the 93 million figure for the West Bank which it did not make sense when earlier in the article they indicated 118 million cub meter figure for the West Bank in 1993). That is kind of the point here--assertions are tested, challenged and maybe we could get a little closer to the actual truth. Or it is all about ego? Surely, it is not about the need to look down one's nose at people....

ray

Neither of these sources are neutral. The UN Human Rights Council is widely considered to be anti-Israel.

How about these sources? Are they also anti-Israel?

WHO/Unicef
Euro-Mediterranean Water Information System
The World Bank
Heinrich Böll Foundation.
The Environmentalist
MedWetCoast Project
amnesty international
Cambridge Review of International Affairs
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (CEJISS)
International Symposium on Groundwater Sustainability
UNICEF
USAID

rickyp wrote:ray

Neither of these sources are neutral. The UN Human Rights Council is widely considered to be anti-Israel.

How about these sources? Are they also anti-Israel?

WHO/Unicef
Euro-Mediterranean Water Information System
The World Bank
Heinrich Böll Foundation.
The Environmentalist
MedWetCoast Project
amnesty international
Cambridge Review of International Affairs
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (CEJISS)
International Symposium on Groundwater Sustainability
UNICEF
USAID

Not all of them. But you still have to win the argument on the merits.

ray

Not all of them. But you still have to win the argument on the merits.

Its hard to understand how you define the merits.
You've used the report from the Israelis Water Authority as your sole source of information on this arguement.
You've admitted it was biased.
I've offered information from a variety of sources, some of which you begrudgingly admit aren't biased...

Are the merits of the argueement that Palestinians are getting a raw deal on water really to be centred on the relative data points alone? Can we not look at the pattern of behaviour in the Water Authority and the way the IDF controls any effort by Palestinians to improve their lot?
Do you another source than the Jan Selby one I quoted that demonstrates that the Joint Water Committee works equally for the two communities?

The West Bank replicates the conditions of Apartheid seen in South Africa. The control of water resources is essentially an extension of that system. There are two people. One occupying and extracting the maximum benefit from the resources. The other subjagated and forced to get by on scraps.
The most egregious symbol of this is the "company store" that is the Israel National Water Company. Selling Palestinians who are bereft of a steady supply of water due to the decisions of the Joint Water Commission andthe IDF, water at a non-negotiable price. And often with below standard quality.
The ent effect of all the polciies regarding water is the Israel settlers in the occupied terriroties have thrived whereas Palstinians have existed. Its not dissimilar to the South African treatment of Balck regarding resuces in that State.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section003_g ... r_policies

Ricky:

Its hard to understand how you define the merits.

Freeman has posted some very good questions and has made some very good points; as far as I can tell, no one has adequately responded to them.

Ricky:

You've used the report from the Israelis Water Authority as your sole source of information on this arguement.

I haven't made an argument on this issue. I've just said there is another view.

You've admitted it was biased.

Ricky: Newsflash: everyone and every organization is biased. But are they correct?

Are the merits of the argueement that Palestinians are getting a raw deal on water really to be centred on the relative data points alone?

What do you have against Data points? Or should we make decisions on who evokes the most emotion, yells the loudest, and has the most voices supporting their view?

Ricky:

One occupying and extracting the maximum benefit from the resources.

Really, maximum benefit?

ray

Ricky: Newsflash: everyone and every organization is biased. But are they correct?

So when you dismiss the UN Human Rights Council as biased you might also concede that even though there is a bias, there might be some truth contained in their conclusions?


ray

What do you have against Data points? Or should we make decisions on who evokes the most emotion, yells the loudest, and has the most voices supporting their view?

If you can't agree on the data as accurate, and Freeman is arguing that the data presented by people like the World Bank, is contradicted by the Israelis Water Authority, then each side have their own data points.
I don't think that using two competing sets of data points advances either arguement. Especially since we have no way of validating either set of data.

So I've said that other evidence can be provided that indicates that there are two different standards in the occupied West bank on water resource decisions. One for Israelis and one for Palestinians.
I've provided a source for that ....

I'd be interested in what evidence there is that contradicts the report of Jan Selby. Or the other news reports of decisions concerning water in the region...
I don't dispute that the Israelis have engineered some worthy improvements to the water system in the West Bank. However they are primarily to benefit settlers....any benefit that Palestinians have enjoyed from this is not intentional. If that were the case, the joint commission and the IDF (the actual decision maker in the region) would be green lighting and even financing far more projects to benefit the Palestinians alone. They don't...

Ricky:

If you can't agree on the data as accurate, and Freeman is arguing that the data presented by people like the World Bank, is contradicted by the Israelis Water Authority, then each side have their own data points.
I don't think that using two competing sets of data points advances either arguement. Especially since we have no way of validating either set of data.

It appears as if you don't understand Freeman's argument. Why don't you look at it again?