Download PDF Version     Printable Version

| More

"Palestinian Water Crisis: Bilateral and Regional Perspectives"

Edited transcript of a presentation by members of the Negotiation Support Unit of the PLO's Negotiations Affairs Department on Water
'For the Record' No. 280 (27 June 2007)

At a 14 June 2007 Palestine Center briefing, Dr. Shaddad Attili, Mr. Fuad Bateh and Mr. John Murray of the Negotiations Support Unit of the PLO's Negotiations Affairs Department, proposed a positive-sum approach for the resolution of the water crisis in the Middle East. As for the allocation of water, both on the political and topographical level, they maintained that an equitable allocation of water is not only essential for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state but will also help restore relations with Israel and its neighboring countries. They also emphasized the dire need for clean water in Gaza and the creation of a much needed desalinization plant. Ultimately, the question of a viable and sustainable Palestinian state and the long-term interests of all the water-sharing parties'Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syrian and Palestine'depends on a sound and just resolution to the water conflict.

The Palestine Center
Washington, DC
14 June 2007


Fuad Bateh

We are very happy to be here and we like to thank all of you for coming to hear our message which we believe is very important to the future Palestinian state and that is the critical message of water and its importance to the Palestinian people and the future of the Palestinian state. The title of our presentation is 'Water and the Two-State Solution.'

We would like for you to take away from this presentation four main messages: first, that the equitable allocation of the shared water resources is essential for a viable Palestinian state; second, the current allocation of water is inequitable, that being between the Palestinians and Israelis and also on a regional basis. It is both inequitable and unsustainable. Our third message is that we believe that we have a proposal for a negotiated solution, what we refer to as a positive-sum game, which is in contrast to how people perceive this issue as a negative-sum game or one side loses while the other side gains. But we see a win-win scenario and one that is sustainable over the long time.  The fourth message we'd like for you to take away from the presentation today is that in looking at the bilateral agreements or multilateral arrangements between all the parties over the shared water resources, we must work to align the interest of these arrangements. One cannot really happen without the other. So let me begin the presentation by giving a little background.

Here you will see three aquifers, sources of ground water, in the West Bank that are shared between the Palestinians and the Israelis. A fourth ground water aquifer is the Gaza Strip aquifer which is part of the costal aquifer basin that is also shared by the Palestinians and Israelis. The fifth major water resource available to the Palestinian people is the Jordan River. The Jordan River basin is actually not only shared with the Israelis but also with the three co-riparians of the basin, which is Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast and Jordan to the immediate east. Now in this context, I would also like to mention the dynamics of the basin, where the true water stress of the basin has its impact most on Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and the Jordanians as the lower members of the basin. Relatively speaking, comparatively, Lebanon and Syria have an abundance of water'it is relative compared to the Palestinians, the Israelis and the Jordanians. We would like to keep this in the back of your mind, to give you context for when we discuss the multilateral, regional element.

Our first message: the equitable allocation of shared water resources is essential for a viable Palestinian state. There have been many proponents for a two-state solution including [U.S. President George W] Bush. In his Road Map, he has talked about a two-state solution. In this, what is absolutely key is the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.  There is no two-state solution if the Palestinian state cannot survive in and of itself. To be viable, Palestine must have an equitable share of fresh water resources. I use the word equitable because this is an international legal standard. Equitable and reasonable allocation under the 1997 U.N. convention on water was the standard that was set, and international legal scholars have been denoting this in soft-law context, the Helsinki Rules, the Berlin Rules for quite some years. This is a principle that is accepted universally among states. Along these lines, if you unpack the words equitable and reasonable, what does it practically mean? [It means] that an agreement between the parties that are sharing water has got to be fair and sustainable over time. So what we say here is that without a negotiated, fair and sustainable solution, there is no chance for a viable state. That is why the water question is so important and why getting the water question right is so important.

What is the current situation? Well, the current situation is the absolute opposite. The current context is that the allocation of water between Palestinians and Israelis is inequitable and therefore it is not sustainable. The Palestinians need to get their rightful share of water. How do we look at the context? Well, we look at it from a control point of view. Israel controls 85 percent of all the available water resources to the Palestinians. Whether it is through Israeli wells that are adjacent to Palestinian wells that go much deeper and basically undermine the Palestinians' ability to extract water or whether it's Israel's location of settlements near key water resources. Major issues are the fact that Palestinians are not able to draw anything from the Jordan River and are denied complete access to it. Also, the most productive zones in the West Bank are in the western side, the Western Aquifer, and the Palestinians have no access to that as well.

I'd like to hit home on this last point with regards to Gaza, the Palestinians living in Gaza and their access to water and that they don't have access to any water outside of Gaza. Why is this important? And it really shows the overall importance of getting the water question right because water has reached crisis level in Gaza. The Gaza Strip has approximately 1.5 million people in a 365 square kilometer area and this makes Gaza one of the highly densely populated areas on earth. Seventy percent of the people there live below the poverty line.

Now, what is the water that they are able to draw out of the ground underneath their feet? Well, sustainable amounts which they can draw in which they can get every year without actually damaging the aquifer is 55 million cubic meters a year. That, in fact, is so far below what they are abstracting for their basic needs. They are taking over 150 million cubic meters of water out of the ground every year. What does this mean? There is a huge disparity. What you're seeing is, because of this use, you have an intrusion from the sea into the aquifer so they're really pulling out sea water and the content of the water is very saline. Another aspect is because of their inability to get outside resources and their inability, due to financial means, to take care of other matters such as waste water treatment, we're finding close to 30 million cubic meters of waste and sewage is now seeping back into the ground and into the aquifer, highly polluting it.

This is a crisis because of the humanitarian health issue. Basically, if we look at it from a personal point of view, the people there are drinking water that is terrible to taste, you look at it, the coloring is brackish and it smells. They don't have any other alternatives. So, if we look at it not only from a quantity issue but also a quality issue you could see the situation is very dire and you're seeing a lot of water related diseases within the population.

If we do a comparison between the people in Gaza and their Israeli neighbors, the discrepancy between water use is one of the Palestinians have about 70 cubic meters per person per year use, where their neighbors right across the way, the Israelis, have an average of 330 cubic meters per person per year. And when you look back and look at the whole picture between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and this holds true, you have an average four times as much water usage by the Israelis than the Palestinians. This is actual usage. But what I want you to focus on is the availability of water. Actually, when you look at the availability of water to the Israelis compared to Palestinians, it's almost ten times the amount. I don't think anyone in this room can come away with saying that that is an equitable allocation of water resources. And therefore, we say that this cannot be sustained over time because one side is going to feel disadvantaged by the other. So on this, I'd like to leave you and ask my colleague, Dr. Shaddad Attili, to come up, and he is going to talk about the solution to this. But before we do, we want to reiterate the point that water is crucial to the viability of a future state, and so we have to get this question right. And as you can see, the current allocation is truly unsustainable.

Shaddad Attili

Thank you Fuad, good afternoon. Just to remind you of the two main messages Fuad highlighted; the current allocation of the water resources shared between Israelis and Palestinians are deeply inequitable, and the second message is that in order to create an independent Palestinian state that is viable, water should be made available to this state. What we call for is to apply internationally recognized standards in terms of shared water resources. The shared water resources, as Fuad said, are the four groundwater aquifers in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the main surface water in the Jordan River basin, which is shared with other riparian countries. This is why it's important when thinking of a solution to address the bilateral and the multilateral scenarios together.

We, in Palestine, kept working on this issue for about eight years. We used almost all the expertise in the world and we brought the best legal advisers, we brought the best conflict resolution people in order to help Palestinians resolve this issue. And that really helped us. And instead of being positional on the issue, our thinking has shifted toward what we call the inter-spaced approach, and we are really delighted to have Professor John Murray help us develop such a scenario.

I just want to highlight the scenario we came up with and why we are here in the States. And we're going to Europe with the same messages that a solution, a water-conflict resolution, is achievable and we're looking at a solution that stands and is sustained over time. So, this is actually our objective, an agreement on water to enable, first, equitable reallocation, second, to help the Palestinian state be a viable one and, third, to have an agreement that is sustained over time.

We identify three main components in order to reach such a solution. First, the need to reallocate the existing shared resources according to international law. International law standards should be applied between the parties on the bilateral level. This means an increase of water to the Palestinians over time. And the main point is that that will not harm Israel's current use. Why? Because the increased use of water for the Palestinians will happen over time. So, if we sign an agreement with Israel today it doesn't mean that we'll have plenty of water and showers the next day because this requires the Palestinians to establish an infrastructure. We need to go to the donors, we need to convince them of establishing and building the infrastructure needed for a viable Palestinian state and that takes time.

Which means, Israel, after signing such an agreement, will recognize our water rights and Israel will also have its water rights secured and recognized. So, here we are taking water as an element of conflict out of the conflict agenda between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is very important.

Second, we're not harming the Israeli current use because the day after the agreement the Israelis will have in their tap in their houses the same amount of water they used before the agreement. Whenever Palestinians are able to build and take their part or share of water, we will take it. In the meantime, Israel is building a desalination plant to compensate the water used by the Palestinians.

The third component related to the solution, which we envision, is the importance of desalination. This is why we're saying that it will not harm Israel because whatever they give Palestinians today, a certain amount, an 'x' amount, they will be able to develop an equivalent amount, if not a 'y' amount which is greater than the amount they give the Palestinians. Here is why we emphasize the importance of the third party, to come and help the parties achieve such a solution.

So, using a diagram, this is how we explain that. The current water utilization, as Fuad mentioned, is 280 and 2,300 million cubic meters for the Israelis. Basically, what we are saying is to apply international law, identify what the Palestinian water rights are and identifying the Israeli water rights.  So, this is our rightful share, yet we are not able to take this water immediately. Palestinians will gradually be able to reach this point, probably in 10 years, 20 years, we don't know; it depends on the implementation of the infrastructure. And this will not harm the Israelis. The Israelis will keep using the amount of water that is left without use by the Palestinians and moreover, they will continue to develop new resources to compensate for this. If you look at the length of this (pointing to a chart) and to the length of the water that the Israelis are developing, it's really greater than this. This is a solution that favors all parties. It doesn't harm Israel and it enables the Palestinians; it enables the implementation of a sound agreement on the ground.

What is the fourth message? The fourth message that we're coming with is that you can't only deal with this bilaterally, just to satisfy the Israelis and the Palestinians and have the international community intervene and say, O.K. guys these are the shared water resources, equitably allocated, and we're helping in the development of new water desalination plants. You cannot forget about the multilateral element. There is the Jordan River basin and what is the current situation in the Jordan River basin? If you go to Jordan you hear, and if you read the newspapers, there are plenty of problems between the Jordanians and the Syrians over the Yarmouk [River]'the current allocation of water. The Syrians are increasing their abstraction from the Yarmouk [River] at the expense of the Jordanians, and there are a lot of problems which have created certain diplomatic incidents between the parties over the use of the Yarmouk.

Let's look at the other riparian, Syria and Israel'the Golan Heights. One of the main components of the Golan's importance is the water issue. Again, four or five years ago, there was a problem over the Wazzani [River]; when Lebanon tried to increase their water use from the Wazzani, Israel threatened to launch a war on Lebanon. And of course, there is the dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis over water.

I want to point out that water is an issue or an element of conflict and this is why we call for the multilateral and the bilateral approach to be coherently aligned and to come up with the positive-sum outcome to the water issue, not only at the bilateral level but also on the regional level.

So, the international community can help the parties achieve such a solution. Israel already started building a desalination plant, but instead of having the desalination component within the equation we showed, they say, listen we do not have an extra drop to give to the Palestinians and the only option for the Palestinians is to go to the sea.
And we're saying that is fine.  We have to develop desalination facilities, import water from Turkey and maybe Turkey can give a certain amount to Syria. Syria left the amount it received form Turkey to Jordan to be taken from the Yarmouk. We can introduce the regional element of this. Israel can build the desalination facility along the coast and we can come, as Palestinians, to help them convince the international community of the importance of having this established which will enable the parties to settle the problems related to water. And water can be used as a vehicle for peace and not left as an element for further conflict.

In conclusion, there is a need to reallocate the existing resources between the Israelis and the Palestinians if we wish to have a viable Palestinian state. We will elaborate more about the importance of water and viability and all the [water related] issues between Israelis and Palestinians. A negotiated agreement is achievable based on international law and the bilateral should be nested coherently with the multilateral scenario. Finally, generating the solution of the positive-sum outcome, here I would like to ask Professor John Murray to come and talk about this concept at the regional level.

Thank you.

John Murray

Thank you very much, Shaddad.

I, of course, am involved in negotiation matters and that's my specialty and I turn to Dr. Attili to help me with the technical matters.

What I wanted to do was to follow on from what Fuad and Shaddad talked about with regard to the multilateral and making sure that what is done in the bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians fits within, nests within the multilateral.

What I have here is a slide that talks about what the water availability is and the water utilization as of a year ago within the Jordan River basin riparian and, in a sense, it is a picture of instability waiting to happen. So there you see that Lebanon and Syria really have a lot more water available to them, both within the basin and outside the basin, whereas the three downstream states in the Jordan River are quite thirsty, as we call it.

You'll notice when we talk about renewable water resource that they have available, that's the total resource that each country has available. You can see that of the resources they have available that, in fact, Lebanon and Syria are not using the complete sustainable or renewable water resources that are available both within and without the Jordan River basin. So in a sense, Syria and Lebanon have many more options available to them in water use than the downstream states. Then you see Israel, Jordan and Palestine are using everything, in fact, sometimes more than what's really available to them. They are thirsty, as we say.

The next thing to realize is that there is a substantial difference in per capita water use among the three downstream states. So, Israel is using 324-330 million cubic meters [MCM] per year, per person; that's what they're using. Jordan has 150, that's less than half, and then you can see that the Palestinians are down at 70. What we're saying is if this is the picture that we have today, it's not sustainable over the long run, you're going to have conflict with this kind of situation. You saw it with the slide that Dr. Attili showed where Jordan and Syria are in conflict, where Lebanon and Israel are in conflict over quantity; so one issue is quantity. Jordan and Israel are in conflict over quality. Israel and Jordan have a peace treaty and according to the peace treaty Israel is to deliver 50 MCM of water a year, and the real question is the quality of that water. And some of the water available to Israelis that they move over to the Jordanians is highly brackish, very saline and therefore not really usable for what the Jordanians want to use it for. There is a quality issue. If you look at the confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians, there is a quality issue going both ways. The Israelis are now very upset at the fact that in the West Bank facilities for waste water, excuse me solid waste, are not built and therefore pollution is coming downhill, downstream, from the West Bank into Israel. And right now, of course, they are very upset and they are taking a charge against the money that the Palestinians would otherwise have.

Now this is setting aside the fact that the reason that the Palestinians have not built a waste treatment plant is because the Israelis have not allowed them to build it. So now the Israelis are getting the message that this is not an issue to look at in terms of us being the occupier and you being the occupied and you can do only what we say'we've got to work together. So there is a quality issue and there is a management issue. So the question is how do you manage? And currently, the management between the Israelis and the Palestinians is one of occupation'the occupier and the occupied in the joint water committee. That kind of, shall we say, uneven table for negotiation is simply not stable. It distorts what you can manage and what is necessary to get in level playing fields. So, the message in the basin right now is a message of power.

How do we resolve these questions? As Dr. Attili said, when Lebanon tried to build a dam on the Wazzani, Israel threatened to bomb it'power, that's how we solve these problems. What we need to get to is a frame that will resolve them by joint management that we advance out security in water by discussing with other people and managing it jointly. So in a sense, if you wanted to move to the positive-sum outcome looked at from a negotiations point of view, you're going to have to move the mindset. You're going to have to move from a position of saying we'll resolve our disputes by power to a position of saying we'll resolve our disputes through discussion, through joint management. Once you make that shift, if the five riparians or individual riparian begin to look at it in terms of joint management then the positive-sum outcome becomes doable.

Already you've heard from Dr. Attili that in fact the Palestinians have moved to realizing that you have to discuss, you have to manage jointly and you have to work on the basis of interest. The Jordanians are there'there are many in Israel, in Syria and Lebanon with whom we're speaking who also see the advantage. We just need to have everybody move together.

Second, once you get a mindset of that, you need to come together and get a vision of how you're going to manage jointly. People in the United States, out in the West, in the Colorado River, had trouble figuring out how they're going to manage their water. So it's not easy; these are not easy questions but these five riparians can come together and envision how they're going to relate to one another'what is the process by which they're going to work through their differences? And once they do that, once they set up that process and develop the criteria, they can address each specific problem as it comes up.

And one of the problems is, O.K. what about the transition period? If we agree that we are going to reallocate the inequitable water resources, it will look on paper that the Palestinians' share goes up and the Israelis' share goes down. However, that's on paper. And as Fuad and Shaddad said, it'll be over time that that actually takes affect. But that means that they have to cooperate, to coordinate in order to make it happen without either of the parties being hurt, and it's that cooperation that's important.

I leave you with one last concluding comment. We are at a stage, a period in which the opportunity exists even though it may seem counterintuitive given all of the news of today and yesterday. We are at a period wherein the opportunity exists to move this forward. We have an Arab League initiative in which Israel can see benefits beyond the bilateral, where they can draw in the entire multilateral picture within this region and we can shift these figures, the ones I showed before, from a picture of instability to a picture of joint, managed stability.

Thank you.


Fuad Bateh is legal advisor to the Palestinian Negotiations Affairs Department. Shaddad Attili is policy advisor with the Palestinian Negotiations Affairs Department. John Murray is water negotiations and conflict management consultant.

Related Documents

• "Palestinian Water Crisis: Bilateral and Regional Perspectives"
  "Palestinian Water Crisis: Bilateral and Regional Perspectives"