This is an example of how the parties can reach an agreement when they resort to civilized negotiations and adhere to the relevant stipulations of international law.
What is theirs is ours
Lamis Andoni
It is difficult to evaluate the tripartite Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian project to build a link between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea without analyzing the broader political context. Granted, saving the ancient Dead Sea, which is expected to dry up in 50 years unless there is a diversion of water from another source, is of utmost necessity for people in the region who are suffering from an acute shortage of water. However, the agreement has not questioned, or even taken into account, Israeli control of Palestinian resources. In addition, the lopsided deal with Jordan leaves the kingdom vulnerable to Israel for supply of its water needs.
For while Israel insists on controlling water-rich areas in the West Bank--and different Israeli plans reveal that it would not withdraw from these areas--Jordanians have not felt a drastic change after their agreement with Israel over water resources.
Not only has Jordan, as a result of the imbalance of power, had to suffice with less, but also Israel has managed to keep the wells it dug in former occupied Jordanian territories.
In return, Jordan accepted diversion of some water from Lake Tiberius to its territory. Still, the deal was by no means equitable: Jordan could not ensure the quality of the water diverted and, more significantly, it received less than what was allocated to it in the American Johnston plan of 1954, which itself was already a compromise of Jordanian rights.
However, the most alarming part of the Jordanian-Israeli agreement over water, and a part that is almost never mentioned, is a far-reaching political compromise that was a prerequisite for Israel's acquiescence to accept some of Jordan's water needs.
In a point kept hidden from the Jordanian public, Amman has agreed to the permanent settlement of Palestinian refugees in the country in return for acquisition of part of its water rights.
Although officials deny it, former Water Minister Munther Haddadin, who negotiated the deal, has disclosed this dangerous aspect of the water agreement in lectures and a in a study that has not been publicized in Jordan.
Dr. Haddadin simply lists this element of the compromise in a table that compares the Johnston plan and the Israeli-Jordanian agreement. Meanwhile Jordanian officials continue to maintain that the government supports the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes if they so choose. It is no secret that Jordan hopes that a final comprehensive settlement in the region would involve generous compensation for loss of resources, mainly water, as a result of its receiving two waves of Palestinian refugees in 1967 and 1948.
Thus, in addition to Jordan's loss of water rights, the Red-Dead Sea project could again involve a political compromise that would pull the kingdom deeper into a contradiction with Palestinian national interests and further fuel hostile public opinion.
Moreover, the experience of the past 11 years has proved that the agreement leaves Israel in semi-total control of direly needed water supplies .That became painfully evident in March 1999, when Israel asked to suspend water diversion from Lake Tiberius as severe drought threatened the region.
The crisis was solved when the two sides reached a compromise whereby Israeli provided part of the water allocated to Jordan. But the political damage was done. The episode left the Jordanian government in a weaker position vis-a-vis opponents of the treaty, as it proved their point about Israel's control of one of the country's scarce life-lines.
The problem with the Dead Sea Canal is once again that agreements are being reached with consideration to the water rights of the weaker parties, while Israel remains the main beneficiary, sharing its neighbors' water without giving up usurped resources.
Finally, the dividends for Israel go far beyond de facto imposition of its control of water resources. They also serve its plans of integration into the region without its fulfillment of provisions of international law that stipulate its withdrawal from captured water-rich territories.
The political benefits were already clear to the founder of modern Zionism. Theodore Herzl promoted the idea of a hydropower canal connecting the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea in his 1902 novel Altneuland. He wrote that it would be possible to take advantage of the 400-meter drop to generate hydroelectric power.
Herzl had no consideration for international law then, and the Israeli government seems less interested now as it uses its military prowess to prove that "what is ours is ours and what is theirs is ours too." - Published 23/6/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.orgLamis Andoni is a veteran journalist and commentator on Middle East affairs.
We don't know what's going to happen
an interview with Mark BernsteinBI: The Red-Dead project seeks to transport water from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. It uses the drop in elevation to generate electricity and desalinate large quantities of water for Jordan, Israel and Palestine, and refills the dangerously depleted Dead Sea with the brine left over after desalination. Are you aware of similar projects elsewhere in the world?
Bernstein: There really isn't anything similar as far as I know. There are of course large scale dams and pipelines, but I don't believe that there's anything like this anywhere else.
BI: The Palestinian Authority has signed on to a World Bank-financed feasibility study for the Red-Dead project. In your opinion, what's in it for the Palestinians?
Bernstein: The health of the Dead Sea is important to them because in final status they have access to that resource. They will be able to utilize the Dead Sea too. Also, if the project puts less strain on alternative regional sources, it could make more water available to them.
BI: What are the primary potential difficulties of the Red-Dead project?
Bernstein: First, I don't think we really know the impact that Red Sea water is going to have on the Dead Sea area ecosystem, given that it is a different type of water. We don't really know what's going to happen. Second, it's unclear how long you can go without having to stop the project. Once you fill up the Dead Sea, what do you do next? Do you stop providing fresh water and electricity? Many critical issues about the project have not been addressed publicly.
There are also a lot of potential positives in this project. You can use gravity to produce potable water that is needed in the region. Perhaps this can be done with less reliance on fossil fuel.
BI: Would you suggest an alternative?
Bernstein: We simply have not yet addressed regional water needs and whether this is the best way to serve them. You have to put this into context. We know there are lots of different reasons why the Dead Sea is drying up. Everyone blames everyone, and it's everyone's fault. There is no single explanation. We haven't examined well enough the question of finding an alternative for refilling it without hurting the economy and the ecology.
For example, the amount of energy it takes Israel to move water from the Sea of Galilee to southern Israel is considerable. What if we said, let's desalinate Mediterranean Sea water in the Israeli south, use energy for that, and let the Sea of Galilee water flow into the Dead Sea as it used to do?
BI: Are you satisfied that the World Bank's feasibility study will answer all of these questions?
Bernstein: Red-Dead is attractive and big; engineers like the idea of building it. But it may not be the best option. The feasibility study will not tell us if this is the best solution, only if it's a possible solution. Nobody has come forward to look at all the options. The last time any regional water analysis was done was by the National Academy of Sciences in the US about 15 years ago, but they didn't really get around to presenting policy options.
The basic issue I have is that this shouldn't be taken out of the context of the whole system. That's what usually happens with a project like this. We can't afford that. To drain capital away for this project is to take capital from something else. Is this the best use of the money?
BI: You recently completed a study of Palestine's water needs. Does Red-Dead fit in?
Bernstein: According to our study the West Bank and Gaza could manage without any desalination for the next 20 years if you plan the system right. So could Israel and Jordan. It takes different thinking: more efficient use of water, recycling of waste water for agriculture, stopping water leakage, etc. It's a lot cheaper to reduce wastage than to desalinate.- Published 24/6/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org
Mark Bernstein is a senior policy analyst at the Rand Corporation, where he works on environmental, water and energy policy issues in the US and globally. He recently authored a chapter on water use in the West Bank and Gaza for a Rand study on building a Palestinian state.
Will it save the Dead Sea?
Gidon BrombergIn July 2024, the World Bank will hold a donors' pledge meeting to seek financing for a study on the feasibility of building a water conveyance project from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. For over two years the World Bank has been negotiating with the Jordanian, Israeli and Palestinian governments to prepare and finalize the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the feasibility study and the environmental and social assessment of the project. In May 2024, after a long process of highly secretive political negotiations, the parties agreed to a common text that now allows the World Bank to proceed.
The project is considerable by any standard. The investment required is estimated at US $5 billion. The desalination component proposed is 5-6 times larger than that of any facility that currently exists. No other project anywhere in the world seeks to connect two seas.
For some, the size of the project excites--large profits to be made, opportunities for high profile leadership, and technological challenges to highlight humankind's ability to overcome the "limitations" of nature. For others, however, and not only environmentalists, the project still raises many more questions than answers.
In May 2024, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, David M. Satterfield, testified before the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee stating his concerns related to the project. He testified:
And there are many crucial questions about the project that remain unanswered, such as: 1) will the introduction of Red Sea water into the Dead Sea have a major negative impact on the chemistry of the Dead Sea water?; 2) while introducing Red Sea water into the Dead Sea to control the level of the Dead Sea may alleviate some environment problems, will such introduction cause other negative environmental impacts?; 3) what will the environmental effects at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba be, where the Red Sea water will be siphoned into the project?; and 4) will the cost of the desalinated water delivered to customers in Amman or other population centers be too expensive for consumers?
The World Bank would likely respond to these concerns by stating that all these and other questions will be answered by the ToR feasibility study that they now seek to undertake. The NGO community is not invited to the World Bank meeting. Therefore, before the donor community convenes to hear the presentations of the World Bank and to be asked to pledge the US $15 million needed just to undertake the study, it should ask the World Bank a few more questions concerning the ToR in order to make sure that taxpayers' money is well spent.
The demise of the Dead Sea is due to the impact of upstream water diversion projects together with mineral extraction industries in the southern basin of the Dead Sea. The natural water conveyance that once brought water to the Dead Sea was the flow of the lower Jordan River. Until the 1950s, some 1.3 billion cubic meters of fresh water flowed down the historic Jordan River and into the Dead Sea. Presently, the flow of the lower Jordan is down to 50-100 million cubic meters. Israel, Jordan and Syria divert 95 percent of the water upstream. The impact of the water diversion is not only tragic for the Dead Sea but also for the Jordan, a river holy to millions of people around the world. The water diversion is so great that in summer the Jordan River no longer reaches the Dead Sea.
What has been left to flow in the Jordan River is untreated sewage and saline water diverted from the Sea of Galilee. One of the most important sites to the Christian world where Jesus was baptized has been defiled.
Recently, 16 members of the US Congress wrote a letter to the Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian leaders calling on them to restore the Jordan River's integrity.
Rehabilitating the Jordan River is also a commitment made by both Israel and Jordan under the terms of their 1994 Peace Treaty. Yet in the ten years since the signing of the Peace Treaty, the governments have done nothing for the river.
An estimated minimum 300 million cubic meters of clean water are required to flow down the Jordan River to rehabilitate it. This constitutes almost half the amount of water required to stabilize the Dead Sea and prevent the sea level from falling any further.
The World Bank's response to the inclusion of the Jordan River in the ToR is simply that there is nothing to discuss. The Bank refuses to study the root cause for the demise of the Dead Sea, stating "the natural flow of the Jordan River is fully appropriated for what is considered essential use by the various water sectors." The so-called "essential use" must refer to agriculture, as agriculture takes the majority of fresh water in the Middle East.
Large quantities of water provided for agricultural purposes in the semi-arid to arid areas of the Middle East would not occur if water to the agricultural sector were not heavily subsidized. The water subsidy to agriculture not only has an environmental result (the demise of the Jordan River and Dead Sea are just two examples), but it also leads to economic absurdities. In Israel, 50 percent of the fresh water resources are allocated to agriculture and yet the economic return is only 2-3 percent of the GDP. In Jordan, 75 percent of fresh water resources are allocated to the agricultural sector and yet the economic value is only 6 percent of the GDP.
In response to this criticism and in order to protect its own credibility, the World Bank recently agreed that in the ToR "statements on water resources management that provide an overview of the policies in the context of the Dead Sea and identify ongoing and planned actions to address broader water resources issues will be prepared in the region."
Donors would be well advised not to invest millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in exchange for vague "statements on water resources management". For political reasons the World Bank is trying to avoid dealing with the difficult issues involved in saving the Dead Sea. A ToR that claims to have saving the Dead Sea as its prime aim without any examination of the causes behind the problem and an investigation into whether those causes can be mitigated in the first place puts the credibility of the whole study into question.- Published 23/6/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org
Gidon Bromberg is the Israeli Director of EcoPeace / Friends of the Earth Middle East, a unique Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli environmental organization promoting sustainable development and peace.
Recognition of equal rights
Ghassan KhatibWater has been one of the most difficult components of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is also one of the major problems facing development in the region. One illustration of the regional water problem is that the parties are not adhering to the international law stipulations regarding water.
An example of this is the Jordan River basin, where Israel has been taking a disproportional amount of the Jordan River in order to compensate for the natural scarcity of water in Israel. This has been done in an illegal way: international water laws specify the amount of water that all riparian parties are allowed to use and stipulate that this should be done in agreement with all parties.
Israel's use of this water is one of many causes that have led to the decline of the amount of water in the Dead Sea, which is unique both because it is the lowest point on earth and because it is the most salty sea on earth. Other reasons for the Dead Sea's decline include Israel's illegal use of it to extract natural resources, especially different types of salts, and vibration, which is a natural cause. All of these factors, and perhaps others, have brought the amount of water in the Dead Sea to half of what it was less than 100 years ago. If things continue like this, experts are predicting that the Dead Sea might become a thing of the past.
One of the ideas for dealing with this problem, which might also have other benefits, is to bring water to the Dead Sea from either the Mediterranean Sea or the Red Sea. It seems that the surrounding countries, basically Israel, Jordan, and Palestine, have found it more convenient to examine the feasibility of a Red-Dead water conveyance. Such a conveyance would not only bring water to compensate for the loss but also serve as a source of power. As the Red Sea is 400 meters higher than the Dead Sea, the conveyance of water from the high level to the low can be used to generate electricity. Another potential use of the project is water desalination, as well as possibly agriculture and tourism.
Such a project has, at the same time, potential problems. Some scientists and ecologists are encouraging decision makers to be cautious because of possible environmental problems. Economists are also suggesting that this project might be too expensive, that the parties might not be able to afford it, and that international donors might be hesitant to provide the large amount of money that such a project requires. For all of these reasons, the parties recently agreed to launch an economic, environmental, technical, and social feasibility study that should provide the information necessary to address all of these fears and concerns. Only after this study will we be able to see if such a project is economically feasible and environmentally safe.
Palestinians have another source of interest in this project. The negotiations that were encouraged and facilitated by the World Bank presented difficult challenges for the Palestinians. During two years of negotiations, Israel argued that because Palestine is not a state, it cannot enjoy riparian rights and consequently cannot even be a party to the agreement on the feasibility study. Palestinians insisted on their rights, however, and were supported by the relevant stipulations of international law. As the World Bank is an important player in such an expensive project, and because the World Bank is a UN international agency that is bound to international law, Israel faced difficulties in getting the Bank and Jordan on board while excluding the Palestinians.
This enabled the three parties to reach an agreement by which Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority are partners on equal footing, with an implicit recognition of the riparian rights of the three of them. That is significant politically and legally for the Palestinians, who are still negotiating and struggling to achieve recognition of the borders of their state. The eastern border is supposed to be the River Jordan and the Dead Sea.
The agreement to launch a feasibility study is significant because it is an example of how the parties can reach an agreement when they resort to civilized negotiations and adhere to the relevant stipulations of international law. If it succeeds, such a regional development project can be an example of regional cooperation of the kind that creates common economic interests, which is useful for the peace process or future peaceful relations in the region.- Published 23/6/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org
Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications and director of the Government Media Center. This article represents his personal views.
Email This Article
Print This Article