-
Published: 19 March 2023
The new war over the division of water, ignites the conflict between Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. Israel acquires 80% of the water under the Oslo agreement, which lasted thirty years and turned water into a strategic Israeli weapon, which ignited the conflict with the participating countries in the agreement, Palestine and Jordan, and raised their fears.
Edited by | Tony Wild
EXCLUSIVE SECTION - CJ JOURNALIST
03/19/2023 - 23:01:13 - Oman
The unequal water treaties granted Israel a comfortable colonization of the West Bank, which cannot obtain enough of it without the consent of Tel Aviv, and at the same time turned water into a weapon and a continuous intimidation card for Jordan, which finds no solution to the water crisis without resorting to Israel.
The Oslo Accords formed the basis for determining who controls the water in Israel and the Palestinian territories. These agreements were supposed to be temporary when they were signed in 1993. But this framework lasted for nearly 30 years. The agreements ended with Israel giving 80 percent of the aquifer water in the West Bank and leaving the rest to the Palestinians.
The agreement has no limits on the amount of water that Israel can seize. But in return, it places limits on the amount of water that Palestinians can take. After the conclusion of this agreement, the Palestinians were unable to reach the agreed water limit for technical reasons. They only get about 14 percent of the water in the aquifer, according to the Israeli group that now sells the water.
The Israeli water company acquires the majority of this common source of water, then sells it to the Palestinians, providing them with about twice the water stipulated in the Oslo agreement, which is insufficient on a per capita basis, which remains much less than what the Israelis receive.
It is noteworthy that the agreement established a joint water committee that was supposed to be a means of coordinating the distribution of water between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Membership was equal for both sides. However, it has become unbalanced at this stage, and all its decisions are in the service of Israel.
The Palestinians accuse this committee of being biased towards Israel, as it is difficult for them to pass any request through it in a timely manner. They feel the effects of this on a daily basis as they do not have enough water. They also remain in need of permits in the West Bank (which they did not obtain) to drill more wells to fill their large water deficit, while Israeli forces continue to destroy unauthorized wells and tanks.
Zoe Rubin, a research fellow at the Fulbright Program in Amman who specializes in climate change and water issues, attributes this situation to the fact that the Palestinians did not negotiate well, and at the same time Israel succeeded in turning the asymmetry into a reality. Rubin said in an interview with Arab Digest that the starting point was not fair and that the Palestinians entered this committee on an unequal basis. I wondered, what does it mean for the Palestinians that the Israelis control 85 percent of the water in the West Bank?
And she considered that this affects the economy and people's health. It affects the way they live as Palestinians in the West Bank look around and see Israelis in their neighboring settlements tending to their thriving gardens and relaxing in their swimming pools. They see this huge contradiction in their lives, and they are unable to change it. It is noteworthy that the Israeli per capita consumption of water was about 10 times that of the Palestinians during the previous droughts. Palestinian per capita consumption actually decreased to less than the limit recommended by the World Health Organization in some Palestinian villages.
When asked if the Palestinians were largely marginalized in the climate change talks despite their attendance at the COP 27 conference in Egypt, Rubin said, "I think the Palestinians are asking whether their participation has given actual legitimacy to a comprehensive system that they feel is unfair," pointing out that the Palestinians' absence from These agreements threatens them the most.
The EcoPease group, which launched initiatives between Israel and Jordan, was featured in Cup 27. These initiatives were initially portrayed as a deal involving the Palestinians. This was supposed to be a way to help them obtain their water rights, but in reality, it is a continuation and perhaps a legitimization of the status quo.
Regarding Jordan's situation, Robin indicated that
“The treaty between him and Israel is still valid despite the political tensions between the two countries,”, especially during the reigns of Benjamin Netanyahu, which may raise the tension to an extreme in the next stage with the right-wing control of the new government. This treaty provided for the establishment of a joint water committee that was able to function properly and achieve some successes between Israel and Jordan in previous droughts.
It is important to view the treaty in the context of this overarching relationship. But Israel has had the upper hand regarding water since this agreement entered into force. And (Israel) has already worked on developing water technology, and it gets water from a catchment area that feeds the Jordan River, pointing out that the Jordanians are “concerned about the amount of water left after Israel takes its total share.”
The Israeli-Jordanian agreement remains far from water requirements today, especially with the burdens imposed by the presence of refugees in the Kingdom of Jordan. Jordan's population exploded as refugees entered the country, which became more dependent on the Jordan River Basin to feed its population, while Israel relied increasingly on desalination for its needs.
The result, says Rubin, is that Jordan is now paying Israel for more water because it is in a pinch. Israel can actually save some water thanks to its desalination capacity. People in Jordan feel the need to spend more money to counteract the effects of water scarcity
with an increase in their number. The government resorted to a system of rationing access to water, especially in some population centers that include a large number of refugees and low-income Jordanians.
Similar to the situation in the West Bank, they are turning to other areas to get water. The deal between Jordan and Israel was sponsored by EcoPeace, an environmental organization. The idea was that Israel and the Palestinians would produce desalinated water and sell it to Jordan, while Jordan would sell renewable energy to the Palestinians and Israel. The rationale behind this is that each partner will be able to adopt their own competitive advantage.
Jordan enjoys this competitive advantage due to its ability to produce solar energy at a cheaper price than Israel. At the same time, Ecopis was arguing that this could actually help the Palestinian Authority become more independent from Israel through water desalination.
This vision outlined sustainable and long-term peace. But the problem is that this idea is different in implementation than what EcoPease formulated. And by the end of 2021, Jordan, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates signed an agreement stipulating that these parties will work to exchange water and energy, as Israel was to provide desalinated water, Jordan was to provide solar energy, and an Emirati company was to provide solar energy technology.
But the main difference here is that the Palestinians are no longer mentioned after they were a major player in the initial version. Then we witnessed the confirmation of this arrangement at the COP 27 conference, without Palestinian participation. The current bargaining model gives Israel far more leverage than Jordan. Jordan will supply about 2 percent of Israel's total energy, while Israel will supply about 20 percent of the water used in Jordan.
Robin explains that the Kingdom of Jordan will be in great danger without the deal, as it does not have enough water. It is unlikely to meet its water requirements in any sustainable and cost-effective way without acquiring a significant portion of its water resources from Israel even as it tries to build up its desalination capacity. Therefore, it can be said that Jordan lacks alternatives.
sources |agencies
