Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Palestinians' Water Cut 'To A Trickle'
Options
Comments
-
As-salam alaykum... then who is shunting the numerous missiles into Southern Israel, and where are they coming from
0 -
FlutterinBantam wrote: »Hmmm... as long as the kerb painters in here keep banging the same auld drum we will have the same auld outcome.
Can you define what a ''Kerb painter'' is please? Not being smart or playing dumb, I would really like to know.The kerb painters can't see that a cessation of rockets into Israeli territory might result in a different outlook.
It wont, A lack of defiance may just make land grabbing quicker. Isreal will still bulldoze and misplace people.0 -
People who try to intimidate others by flying flags in their faces, or as in NI, painting kerbs in their favourite colours.
But I'm sure you knew that;)
0 -
I wasn't offering to educate you. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of doing that yourself. I'm sure your superior knowledge on the situation is adequate. I'm perfectly willing to be enlightened though. Although, please do not call me anti-Israeli.diverdriver wrote: »Jaysus, give us a chance I have a life to lead outside the internet you know. But in any case I don't really need you to educate me about the situation. I'm quite aware of the history and am no cheerleader for many Israeli policies, indeed something I share with many Israelis. But it's clear to me many anti Israeli types apparently have no appreciation for the history of Israel and why they act as they do or the stark reality of what would happen to Israel it they were to take your 'advice'.
Would you care to offer your own solutions or are you going to criticise what everyone is saying?diverdriver wrote: »What? You actually think this thread is about water to Gaza. It's another bash Israel thread in a long line of bash Israel threads. Sand put it very well. The whole thing is pointless as the same suspects with their simplistic solutions trot them out again and again.
Well it is the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative passed unanimously by the Arab League in 2002 and numerous time since. It's also the basis of international law and the international consensus as illustrated by the annual UN General Assembly Resolutions "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine", usually passing by 160 odd votes to six ( Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States usually voting against).diverdriver wrote: »Dear God, do you honestly believe that. Is your understanding of the situation so shallow that you actually believe the Palestinians and the wider Arab world will be happy with that situation? I'm actually laughing as I type this.
I'm glad you don't condone it. It doesn't matter if it is deliberate or not, it's a violation of the laws of occupation.diverdriver wrote: »But to return the the original topic. Yes it is a bad thing if Israel is deliberately reducing water supply to the Palestinians. They shouldn't do it and it's not helping their cause. Not least because it give ammunition to the anti Israeli trendies like yourselves. But I do wonder just how deliberate it is?
The same Syria that voted in favour of the Arab Peace Initiative? Iran is a separate matter. Most Arab states are hostile to Iran and I believe that Arab support for peace with Israel is partly in order to sideline Iran and ally themselves with a militarily powerful and nuclear Israel. However, this is just my speculation so you can disregard it if you want.diverdriver wrote: »Sigh:rolleyes: Clearly you never heard of Iran, Syria etc etc.
The root cause of the Six Day War is contested. I'm not going to argue that Egypt wasn't going to attack Israel. However, it was Israel that launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt. This topic has been the subject of whole books so I don't think we can extrapolate the true events on a thread like this.diverdriver wrote: »Read your history: The Yom Kippur war, the Six Day war.
The Yom Kippur war would likely have been avoided if Israel had accepted the 1971 UN Jarring Commission initiative for peace as Egypt offered. The Yom Kippur was a direct outcome of the this with Egypt seeking to regain the Sanai. After the rejection Israel began settling the Sanai, most notably the settlement of Yamit. The Jarring proposal was near identical to the 1979 Camp David accords, with the 1979 agreement actually placing more conditions on Israel than the 1971 offer did. Oh, you also reglected to mention the 1956 Israeli invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis.
As mentioned above, every Arab country has offered full peace and normalisation of relations with Israel. Your assertion that there are Arab countries that was to eliminate Israel is flat out wrong. Iran is a pretty moot point in relation to this issue. Also the president of Iran isn't the head of the armed forces and has not power to so squat.diverdriver wrote: »You've heard of Hamas, look them up. You've heard of Iran, check out the speeched of their leader! In general many Arab and Muslim countries want to eliminate Israel.You might say that but do they. Do you really think they are as reasonable as you. You have heard about the Arab Israeli citizens living in Israel. Indeed it's unsupportable but it happened, that's war. Would you support the removal of Jews from their country?
Typical propaganda.
Well you have not posted anything to back up your points. It's a bit rich telling other people to open a book when you're offering nothing. Would you care to offer some recommended reading from all of those books that you have opened and enlighten us with your apparent superior knowledge?diverdriver wrote: »I suggest you go to a good bookshop and read up on the subject. Don't get it off the internet from the likes of the people who post here. The history of Israel is complex and difficult. There are no good guys or bad guys here. When you have studied the subject come back here and ask your questions. Of course I know you won't, most people nowadays get the history lesson from the internet. That oh so reliable and unbiased source of information.:rolleyes:.
Again, I'm glad you don't condone this action by Israel. However, there is no excuse for this action based on any rationale, either past or present. As I've mentioned before, it's a violation of the laws of occupation.diverdriver wrote: »You are asking me to defend Israel and their current policies. I cannot and will not. But you will never understand why such a seemingly hostile act as reducing the water supply can happen until you understand how it came to this.0 -
FlutterinBantam wrote: »As-salam alaykum...
You're trying to make some point....?FlutterinBantam wrote: »then who is shunting the numerous missiles into Southern Israel, and where are they coming from
Gaza, which is under Hamas, where the water is being stolen as in the OP....The West Bank is controlled by Fatah and no rockets are launched from there.
As somebody who claimed knowledge of the situation, you don't seem very conversant with the facts.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're trying to make some point....?
Gaza, which is under Hamas, where the water is being stolen as in the OP....The West Bank is controlled by Fatah and no rockets are launched from there.
As somebody who claimed knowledge of the situation, you don't seem very conversant with the facts.
I'm asking a question in case you didn't notice??0 -
Kerb painters? WTF?FlutterinBantam wrote: »Hmmm... as long as the kerb painters in here keep banging the same auld drum we will have the same auld outcome.
Hamas keep shunting numerous missiles into Israel, Israel will keep retaliating.
The kerb painters can't see that a cessation of rockets into Israeli territory might result in a different outlook.
A bit of talk rather than the bellicose acts of rocketing innocent people might, just might , be a start.;)
I wholly agree that no rockets should be fired into Israel. However, to state that Israel will stop building settlements in the West Bank as a result of such a cessation is just bizarre. Israel has been building settlements since the 1970's even before any real resistance started, primarily starting with the first intifada in 1987 which was directed against the Israeli military in the West Bank.
Large scale terrorism only really began coming from the Palestinian territories with the beginning of the second intifada. Also, no rockets are coming from the West bank but the settlements continue to be built in violation of international law. The Fatah have also largely met their obligations under the Roadmap in the West Bank. However, Israel continues to build settlements in violation of the agreement.
The occupation and settlements started when there were no rockets, continued when there were no rockets and continue still even though that there are no rockets coming from the West Bank.
And again....Kerb painters....WTF?0 -
FlutterinBantam wrote: »I'm asking a question in case you didn't notice??
It seemed rhetorical. However - to recap - Gaza = Hamas lobbing the odd rocket and being bombed, starved and deprived of resources. The West Bank = Fatah not lobbing rockets and getting built on at a frightening pace. There is therefore punishment for resistance, and punishment for submission.0 -
@Ping Chow ChiTo be fair, you could say this is true of most of the threads on most of the forums on the board (but in particular to politics and sport I find). No one is forcing anyone at gun point to read these forums though
Sure, agreed. This is a discussion board, people here are amatuers so you where a thread rises above noise is rare and to be praised. Most of the rest is pub talk level.
I find theres more fanatical mindsets on display in these Israeli threads, because objectively, we dont have a stake in this. I sincerly doubt average ordinary palestinians or israelis see the utility in people arguing over history books or whose at fault.
When you see a constant holding pattern in thought/discussion I dont see a problem in calling it. No harm in asking people to raise their game.
@dlofnepAnd why is it, that threads related to Palestine go in favour of the Palestinians? Is it because they are drastically more oppressed? Or is it an evil agenda against Israel? Which is it? Are we all anti-semites? Or are we just tired of Israel's blatant abuse of the Palestinian people, and consistent refusal to adhere to international law?
I think this covers it:Eventually someone throws their hands up in disgust at the insanity and moves on, swearing never to make the mistake of trying to reason with the fanatics ever again.Secondly, this isn't nothing to do with Hamas. The topic is water resources. Pay attention, thanks.
Heres your OP:Full article: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...00910415418465
More disgusting behaviour by Israel. What is it going to take for them to end this nonsense? The UN needs to intervene. A unbiased peace-keeping force needs to be sent into the area and enforce international law, because Israeli forces have absolutely no accountability. Palestinian land should be returned. Illegal settlements should be destroyed. Israel's leaders should be brought before the Hague for war-crimes. The US should end their unlimited spending on military aid for Israel.
You called for:
- UN intervention.
- A peacekeeping force.
- Derided the accountablility of Israeli forces.
- Demanded the return of Palestinian territory.
- Demanded the destruction of illegal settlements
- Demanded that Israeli leaders be put on trial for war crimes
- Demanded that the US end military aid to the Israel.
Not once did you mention water. Not once. Instead you invited comment on pretty much the A-Z of the standard Israeli-Palestinian death spiral.
But ****it. Lets pretend you did want to talk about water policy in the Israeli-Palestinian area. Go for it:
What sort of policy would you like to see? Heres a helpful link thats more than shouting and pointing.
Lets hit some common ground that I think we can all agree on.
- Firstly, water resources are pooled between Israel and Palestine. Some sort of group of trustees would need to be setup: I assume Israel would want the US on board, the Palestinians would want the UN or perhaps Arab League reps. Trustees would obviously need to keep everyone honest.
- Water usage rights are assigned on a per person basis across both states, with obviously consideration for commercial/public entities . My link reccomends a minimum of 100L per capita per day, so maybe some figure above that to leave scope for trade below.
- A common market is set up for sale and purchase of water rights: Those who can cut back easily do so, and sell their surplus allowance to those who cant cut back as easily. Essentially, I think what will happen here in practise for the immediate future is that Israelis will be purchasing water rights from Palestinians providing them with a form of income. This is based on the reality that water usage is very much lopsided as it currently is, so it will take time for Israelis to fully adjust to a more realistic, shared allowance. Meanwhile the Palestinian share will be improving and the pricing of water rights will ensure a consistent incentive for the Israelis to reduce their own usage.
- Generally this doesnt absolutely require agreement on all other aspects of the conflict, as my link points out, a functioning water sharing agreement might actually serve to build confidence and assist in reaching agreement on other points.
Agree? Disagree? On what points? Whats your view?0 -
Really? Because Abbas has kept his lot in line in the West Bank, and all he's got for his trouble is expanded settlements there.
Que Pasa?
The West Bank has been largely peaceful for ages now but what have they got in return? Less water and less land, yep thats a way to make peace alright. Dammed if they do, dammed if they dont. Obama should try and exert more pressure on them but might not be able to until after 2012.0 -
Advertisement
-
@dlofnep
You called for:
- UN intervention.
- A peacekeeping force.
- Derided the accountablility of Israeli forces.
- Demanded the return of Palestinian territory.
- Demanded the destruction of illegal settlements
- Demanded that Israeli leaders be put on trial for war crimes
- Demanded that the US end military aid to the Israel.
Of course I gave an overview on the ongoing struggle of the Palestinian people. Accountability and an overseer being the key, to ensure issues such as water access are resolved.What sort of policy would you like to see? Heres a helpful link thats more than shouting and pointing.
Lets hit some common ground that I think we can all agree on.
- Firstly, water resources are pooled between Israel and Palestine. Some sort of group of trustees would need to be setup: I assume Israel would want the US on board, the Palestinians would want the UN or perhaps Arab League reps. Trustees would obviously need to keep everyone honest.
Firstly - The vast majority of the resources lay within the West Bank - where the Palestinians are 'subject to military orders', while illegal Israeli settlers are not.
This issue transcends groups of Trustees, because Israel refuses to deal with the international community and does what it pleases. There is a vast wealth of evidence to support this - From refusal to accept charges of war crimes, to defying international law - building illegal settlements.
Israel does not compromise. It calls the shots. The US should not have a say in the issue. It is an issue for the UN, which is far more accountable than the US. If history has shown us anything, it is the refusal of the US to act in a firm manner towards Israel's consistent refusal to accept international law. Which is why the UN should be the one to engage.Essentially, I think what will happen here in practise for the immediate future is that Israelis will be purchasing water rights from Palestinians providing them with a form of income.
Is this a serious suggestion? What evidence is there to suggest that Israel would make such a move?This is based on the reality that water usage is very much lopsided as it currently is, so it will take time for Israelis to fully adjust to a more realistic, shared allowance.
Once again, where is the evidence to suggest that Israelis are willing to compromise to a satisfactory level? Israel has had since 1967 to resolve this, and still have not. The original article states that Palestinians have only used up 16% more since 1967 - but this is still very much insufficient. So, if there has been no real movement in 42 years - why do you expect it to start now?
Moreover - Would you care to comment on Israel demolishing water tanks as explained here?Teacher and father-of-seven Bassam Qdah has built a concrete water tank to collect rain water in his home in the village of Shukba.
The Israeli army has told him it will be demolished because it was built without a permit.
"We have seven young children," he told Amnesty researchers, "and even if we use it sparingly, we still need quite a bit of water.
"Why would they want to demolish this small cistern? It does not bother anyone and is on my land."
If Israel won't even allow Palestinians to create their own means to gather resources, then what exactly makes you believe that they are willing to move forward with this issue?
So in summary - not only has Israel allocated an unfair share of water to illegal settlers, at the expense of the native population - but it also engages in the demolishment for Palestinians who actively try to gather resources to account for the lack of water.0 -
@dlofnepOf course I gave an overview on the ongoing struggle of the Palestinian people. Accountability and an overseer being the key, to ensure issues such as water access are resolved.
:rolleyes:
Anyhow, moving past the flaming wreakage of your OP.
I invited you to contribute your opinion on what water policy should be, provided you with a fairly non-partisan link so you could educate yourself, took the first steps to raise the discussion to something above playground level and youve rejected that and instead simply gone "Oh those evil Israelis!" again. You call for some pie in the sky world peace and yet deride and dismiss any discussion of what even one small aspect of a concrete, sustainable, realistic deal might look like.
I think that effectively validates my own cyncism over these threads which are just circle jerks for a blinkered fanatical mindset, and demonstrates why you think these threads "go in favour of the Palestinians". People throw their hands up in disgust at the insanity and move on.Would you care to comment on Israel demolishing water tanks as explained here?
Yeah, I think that Palestinian needs a real, concrete sustainable deal over water rights and usage in the region as opposed to your own self serving brand of fanaticism on the issue.
You want to know something funny....I knew youd try to use that guy. You can choose to disbelieve me, I cant prove it. But I knew you would. Thats how old and predictable the mindset behind these threads is.0 -
Anyhow, moving past the flaming wreakage of your OP.
My OP was just fine. Thank you very much. However, because it criticises Israel, it's not your cup of tea. You stating that it's a wreckage, does not make it so. And you can keep your rolling eyes for someone else.I invited you to contribute your opinion on what water policy should be, provided you with a fairly non-partisan link so you could educate yourself, took the first steps to raise the discussion to something above playground level and youve rejected that and instead simply gone "Oh those evil Israelis!" again. You call for some pie in the sky world peace and yet deride and dismiss any discussion of what even one small aspect of a concrete, sustainable, realistic deal might look like.
And I explained why it isn't feasible to achieve such a thing with Israel - highlighting that they have no accomplished anything in 42 years - but yet suddenly, we are to believe that they will now become accountable and change? Despite to overwhelming proof that they are unwilling to deal with the issue.Yeah, I think that Palestinian needs a real, concrete sustainable deal over water rights and usage in the region as opposed to your own self serving brand of fanaticism on the issue.
But yet, you are unwilling to tell us exactly how Israel is to agree to such a thing? You're seriously skewing over the reality of the situation. Under normal circumstances, a deal could be reached. But when Israel refuses to even let a man gather his own water - you know something is wrong.You want to know something funny....I knew youd try to use that guy. You can choose to disbelieve me, I cant prove it. But I knew you would. Thats how old and predictable the mindset behind these threads is.
I don't care if you expected me to bring him up - It doesn't negate the validity of his case. I see that instead of actually taking onboard the issue - you try to chastise me for bringing it up - which inevitably excuses you from actually discussing the issue. (Which by the way, you've been doing a great job of in the entire thread).
Next time, try not be so condescending and look into the the reality of the situation, instead of proposing nonsensical ideas that can't effectively work - due to the nature of one state calling the shots, and the other oppressed state have little to no power to make change. That change HAS to come from an external source - which I suggested the UN would best represent.0 -
@Sure, agreed. This is a discussion board, people here are amatuers so you where a thread rises above noise is rare and to be praised. Most of the rest is pub talk level.
If you insist on participating, is it too much to ask you leave the sneering condascension at home?0 -
@dlofnepMy OP was just fine. Thank you very much. However, because it criticises Israel, it's not your cup of tea. You stating that it's a wreckage, does not make it so. And you can keep your rolling eyes for someone else.
I'll remind you of what you told another poster when they raised an aspect you didnt like.Secondly, this isn't nothing to do with Hamas. The topic is water resources. Pay attention, thanks.
And Ill remind you of your OP.
You did not mention water once in a wide ranging "Oh god, arent the Israelis only awful" tirade. You claim the topic is water, yet in your OP you didnt mention water once. Not once. I repeat, zero times.
And you are unable and unwillinging to enter any discussion on what a realistic water policy might look like (I am asking you for what you think the policy *should* be, not asking you for a probability estimate of it occcuring), prefering instead to simply enter into another tirade.
This thread is about a lot of things, but its not water so I believe you owe FlutterinBantam an apology, and then you should address the point you dismissed.
@NodinIf you insist on participating, is it too much to ask you leave the sneering condascension at home?
Out of curiousity Nodin, given your interest in politeness and respect, care to comment on your comrades respectful stance to other posters?Secondly, this isn't nothing to do with Hamas. The topic is water resources. Pay attention, thanks.
Nah, didnt think so.0 -
You did not mention water once in a wide ranging "Oh god, arent the Israelis only awful" tirade. You claim the topic is water, yet in your OP you didnt mention water once. Not once. I repeat, zero times.
The article said it all.And you are unable and unwillinging to enter any discussion on what a realistic water policy might look like (I am asking you for what you think the policy *should* be, not asking you for a probability estimate of it occcuring), prefering instead to simply enter into another tirade.
I've already responded to this. I stated that the UN should oversee it, but that any such policy is not feasible without intervention. The Palestinians should have an adequate source of water.
Do you expect anything to occur without intervention? I don't.This thread is about a lot of things, but its not water so I believe you owe FlutterinBantam an apology, and then you should address the point you dismissed.
Yes, it is about water. The other underlying problems are a background to the problem. I don't owe FlutterinBantam anything, thank you very much. If you don't find the idea of posting kerb paintings in the thread as off-topic, then that's your prerogative.
You have still avoided discussing the issues I have raised, as expected.0 -
Out of curiousity Nodin, given your interest in politeness and respect, care to comment on your comrades respectful stance to other posters?
For someone banging on about how everyone who disagrees with your posts are some how fanatical and seems to think the quality of posting is so poor, I find it odd that you seem to have no issue with the whole "kerb painting" accusations being tossed about. Does this raise the level of discourse? Or is that you don't really give a rats ass about raising the level of discourse, and are instead fighting your corner like everyone else does, but some how trying to convince yourself and those that agree with you, that you are some how better than the other guy.
Lets all be honest here, your problem is that people disagree with you. If you cared about the quality of discussion, then you would be attacking posters on both sides, and offering a higher level of discourse yourself. The truth is that you do none of these things, and clearly have an issue with people disagreeing with you, hence the ridiculous accusations of people being fanatics, which btw, does nothing to raise the level of discussion, but its not like you actually care about such things, as your efforts are more about smearing those who disagree with you.
Oh and here is an example of your discourse raising (discuss other posters instead of the topic at hand):I find theres more fanatical mindsets on display in these Israeli threads, because objectively, we dont have a stake in this. I sincerly doubt average ordinary palestinians or israelis see the utility in people arguing over history books or whose at fault.
So, basically people here have "fanatical mindsets", if they don't confirm to what you think a high quality discussion is.
Also, you don't seem to have issue with people bringing up history, when they are arguing a pro-Israel view point (as has been done in this thread). If you so concerned with raising the the bar, one would assume you would have a problem with all posters arguing over history, and yet oddly you don't. How very strange. Could it be that you have picked a side just like everyone else here, but seem be trying to oddly convince people otherwise.
See, the funny thing, is that the stuff you accuse other of, you do yourself. You are in everyone of these threads, just like the rest of us, arguing your corner like everyone else, so lets not pretend otherwise.
Quick question, you have this habit of making these threads from time to time, about other posters, who disagree with you, how exactly does this make you any different than what your accusing (wrongly imho) the op of? Also, seeing as you will happily defend Israel just as strongly as other posters will the Palestinian, how exactly are you any different?
Also, the problem with your proposals for equal sharing of the water, is that neither side trust each other enough to implement such a plan, and as such any solution would involved a neutral 3rd party (e.g. not the USA or say Saudia Arabia), to manage the fair sharing of natural resources, well in the short term at least.0 -
@dlofnepThe article said it all.
So essentially your comments and views are surplus to the thread? Grand.
@WesIf you cared about the quality of discussion, then you would be attacking posters on both sides, and offering a higher level of discourse yourself, The truth is that you do none of these things,
I offered a higher level of discourse only on the last page: asked the OP to put forward some ideas on what he thinks a just,reasonable water policy in the region would look like. I threw him a link discussing the issue in some detail so he could educate himself on it. I even kicked things off by proposing some ideas on how it might work. Asked him to propose what he agreed with, what he disagreed with.
And I got:
A fairly predictable "Oh and they only so terrible and evil!"
Surprise me though. Tell me what you think a sustainable, just water policy for the region would look like.0 -
I think these are very good ideas. However, given historical and current precedent I can't see it ever being implemented.But ****it. Lets pretend you did want to talk about water policy in the Israeli-Palestinian area. Go for it:
What sort of policy would you like to see? Heres a helpful link thats more than shouting and pointing.
Lets hit some common ground that I think we can all agree on.
- Firstly, water resources are pooled between Israel and Palestine. Some sort of group of trustees would need to be setup: I assume Israel would want the US on board, the Palestinians would want the UN or perhaps Arab League reps. Trustees would obviously need to keep everyone honest.
- Water usage rights are assigned on a per person basis across both states, with obviously consideration for commercial/public entities . My link reccomends a minimum of 100L per capita per day, so maybe some figure above that to leave scope for trade below.
- A common market is set up for sale and purchase of water rights: Those who can cut back easily do so, and sell their surplus allowance to those who cant cut back as easily. Essentially, I think what will happen here in practise for the immediate future is that Israelis will be purchasing water rights from Palestinians providing them with a form of income. This is based on the reality that water usage is very much lopsided as it currently is, so it will take time for Israelis to fully adjust to a more realistic, shared allowance. Meanwhile the Palestinian share will be improving and the pricing of water rights will ensure a consistent incentive for the Israelis to reduce their own usage.
- Generally this doesnt absolutely require agreement on all other aspects of the conflict, as my link points out, a functioning water sharing agreement might actually serve to build confidence and assist in reaching agreement on other points.
Agree? Disagree? On what points? Whats your view?
However, I would add to these that there would need to be financial aid to modernise sanitation, sewage treatment and piping to reduce polution and wastage in the Palestinian territories. Israel would also have to stop pumping waste into Palestinian areas contaminating groundwater reserves.
While water is at such a premium in the area the potential for conflict is always a possibility. However, hopefully new desalination technologies will help alleviate the situation also. If there was a comprehensive peace agreement in the region then all states could pool resources and develop a regional solution to a regioinal problem.0 -
Asked him to propose what he agreed with, what he disagreed with.
And I got:
A fairly predictable "Oh and they only so terrible and evil!"
No, that is not what you received. I stated that it was not possible to implement any such policy without intervention, suggesting that the UN would be the best entity to oversee such a policy - on account of Israel not moving forward on the issue, when they have had the chance for a considerable time - further backed up by their audacity to demolish a man's water reservoir, when it had already been highlighted by amnesty international that they are not receiving adequate supplies.
So please, don't skew the reality of what I said. You've proven that you are unwilling to discuss the issue. You've once again avoided discussing the issue relating to the demolition of a water tank, and never once took into consideration the feasibility of a nation creating a fair and balanced water policy, when they are already punishing civilians for trying to gather their own.0 -
Advertisement
-
@Wes
I offered a higher level of discourse only on the last page: asked the OP to put forward some ideas on what he thinks a just,reasonable water policy in the region would look like. I threw him a link discussing the issue in some detail so he could educate himself on it. I even kicked things off by proposing some ideas on how it might work. Asked him to propose what he agreed with, what he disagreed with.
So, basically you admit that most of your posts in this thread, aren't to your to your own high standard.And I got:
A fairly predictable "Oh and they only so terrible and evil!"
Really, you did? Here what I got (going to quote the whole post):Of course I gave an overview on the ongoing struggle of the Palestinian people. Accountability and an overseer being the key, to ensure issues such as water access are resolved.
Firstly - The vast majority of the resources lay within the West Bank - where the Palestinians are 'subject to military orders', while illegal Israeli settlers are not.
This issue transcends groups of Trustees, because Israel refuses to deal with the international community and does what it pleases. There is a vast wealth of evidence to support this - From refusal to accept charges of war crimes, to defying international law - building illegal settlements.
Israel does not compromise. It calls the shots. The US should not have a say in the issue. It is an issue for the UN, which is far more accountable than the US. If history has shown us anything, it is the refusal of the US to act in a firm manner towards Israel's consistent refusal to accept international law. Which is why the UN should be the one to engage.
Is this a serious suggestion? What evidence is there to suggest that Israel would make such a move?
Once again, where is the evidence to suggest that Israelis are willing to compromise to a satisfactory level? Israel has had since 1967 to resolve this, and still have not. The original article states that Palestinians have only used up 16% more since 1967 - but this is still very much insufficient. So, if there has been no real movement in 42 years - why do you expect it to start now?
Moreover - Would you care to comment on Israel demolishing water tanks as explained here?
If Israel won't even allow Palestinians to create their own means to gather resources, then what exactly makes you believe that they are willing to move forward with this issue?
So in summary - not only has Israel allocated an unfair share of water to illegal settlers, at the expense of the native population - but it also engages in the demolishment for Palestinians who actively try to gather resources to account for the lack of water.
Not a single mention of anyone being "evil"? How very odd, seem the only person using the word "evil" is you.
Also, seems to me that the poster in question did offer a counter to the argument you offered. Seems to me that once again, your issue is that someone is not agreeing with you and not the level of discussion, as there is clearly no mention of anyone being "evil", and that seems to be how you have decided to interpret what was being said, when some disagrees with you, either they have "fanatical mindsets" or the quality of argument is good enough.Surprise me though. Tell me what you think a sustainable, just water policy for the region would look like.
I already did:Also, the problem with your proposals for equal sharing of the water, is that neither side trust each other enough to implement such a plan, and as such any solution would involved a neutral 3rd party (e.g. not the USA or say Saudia Arabia), to manage the fair sharing of natural resources, well in the short term at least.
Now, it doesn't go into minute detail, as I am no expert on how to distribute water, but I think a neutral 3rd party handling water distribution would be far better than either side having a monopoly on control of it. Now, maybe over time as both sides build trust, they can jointly manage the water resources.0 -
@The SaintHowever, given historical and current precedent I can't see it ever being implemented.
Agreed, but its fair to say its difficult to see any peace deal being implemented for similar reasons. But accepting that, lets do some brain storming on what a deal might look like. However hard it is to implement a deal, its easier to do when there is discussion of what the deal would look like.However, I would add to these that there would need to be financial aid to modernise sanitation, sewage treatment and piping to reduce polution and wastage in the Palestinian territories. Israel would also have to stop pumping waste into Palestinian areas contaminating groundwater reserves.
Yep, infrastructure would be tricky: realistically the Palestinians would need massive investment in their infrastructure, otherwise the water isnt going to make it from the resevoirs and wells to the users anyway, regardless of the theoretical water allowance.
Id assume the EU/US/Arab neighbours could agree to pick up the tab until the Palestinians can budget for their own infrastructure needs: perhaps in line with Israeli budgeting - If Israel has 25% of total population using the water and budgets X, then Palestine is subsidised by at least 3X given its got 75% of water usage.
Alternatively, both could agree to surrender control over their water infrastructure to the neutral third party such as that trustee group which would clear away two bureacracies trying to co-operate with each other. But Im not sure either, but particularly Israel, would be wild about surrendering control over their water infrastructure to anyone else.While water is at such a premium in the area the potential for conflict is always a possibility. However, hopefully new desalination technologies will help alleviate the situation also. If there was a comprehensive peace agreement in the region then all states could pool resources and develop a regional solution to a regioinal problem.
Yep - if the water issue isnt sorted, there wont be any peace regardless of any other concern. My understanding is that water reclaimation is still not very effective, but necessity is the mother of invention.0 -
This is true but it seems like putting the cart before the horse in a sense. However, water is one of the main stumbling blocks regarding peace agreements with states such as Syria. Peace talks between the two collaped in the 1990's on this very issue. Israel refused to return to the 1967 border as it wanted to maintain exclusive access to the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers as far as I remember.Agreed, but its fair to say its difficult to see any peace deal being implemented for similar reasons. But accepting that, lets do some brain storming on what a deal might look like. However hard it is to implement a deal, its easier to do when there is discussion of what the deal would look like.
Sounds like a good ideaId assume the EU/US/Arab neighbours could agree to pick up the tab until the Palestinians can budget for their own infrastructure needs: perhaps in line with Israeli budgeting - If Israel has 25% of total population using the water and budgets X, then Palestine is subsidised by at least 3X given its got 75% of water usage.
Yeah, can't really see that one working. I'd imagine Israel would stipulate its retention of water access while perhaps having outside observers ensuring the deliver of water to the Palestinians and stopping Israel from "cheating" and using more than it's allocation of water. It's not really fair on the Palestinians but I couldn't see the Israelis giving up their greater access.Alternatively, both could agree to surrender control over their water infrastructure to the neutral third party such as that trustee group which would clear away two bureacracies trying to co-operate with each other. But Im not sure either, but particularly Israel, would be wild about surrendering control over their water infrastructure to anyone else.
Well I know that there are some large scale desalination plants in the world. Might not be the total solution to all the probem but it surely couldn't hurt. I've just picked some stuff from Wiki and it doesn't seem like an outlandish idea. In the event of a comprehensive peace agreement in the region, ideally based on the Arab Peace Initiative, the US could replace military aid to Israel (since much of the perceived threat would be gone) and replace it with aid to build desalination plants thereby helping to secure Israel's water security. The same could be done for the Palestinians in Gaza. While piping water from Gaza to the West Bank might not be practical, Gaza could export water (if there is excess water) to Israeli towns close to Gaza and in return Israel could pipe water into the West Bank at the same rate. This would create a functionalist approach to cooperation, therefore leading to mutual dependency and further integration with the well being of one being partially dependent on the other. Bit far fetched maybe.Yep - if the water issue isnt sorted, there wont be any peace regardless of any other concern. My understanding is that water reclaimation is still not very effective, but necessity is the mother of invention.
I've just picked some stuff from Wiki and it doesn't seem like an outlandish idea to build desalination plants.
At 300 million a pop, if the US replaced it's military aid to Israel with aid to build these plants, Israel could build 8 desalination plants a year for the same cost as the 2007 level of military aid. This would be enough for 800,000 US homes, so would likely serve even more homes in Israel/Palestine with better conservation."In November, Connecticut-based Poseidon Resources Corp. won a key regulatory approval to build a [US]$300 million water-desalination plant in Carlsbad, north of San Diego. The facility would be the largest in the Western Hemisphere, producing 50 million [U.S.] gallons [190,000 m³] of drinking water a day, enough to supply about 100,000 homes... Improved technology has cut the cost of desalination in half in the past decade, making it more competitive.
When built alongside power plants they appear to be more effecient. Perhaps Israel could use it's nuclear power knowledge in implementing such programmes and could export its excess electricity.In a December 26, 2007 opinion column in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nolan Hertel, a professor of nuclear and radiological engineering at Georgia Tech, wrote, "... nuclear reactors can be used... to produce large amounts of potable water. The process is already in use in a number of places around the world, from India to Japan and Russia. Eight nuclear reactors coupled to desalination plants are operating in Japan alone... nuclear desalination plants could be a source of large amounts of potable water transported by pipelines hundreds of miles inland..."0
Advertisement