For the past 20 years, Israelis and Palestinians alike have approached peace negotiations with the flawed assumption that to reach an agreement, all core issues must be solved simultaneously. As the conflict continues to claim victims on both sides, it is important to point out that when US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, was looking for an early success in the new administration’s peace efforts, he found it — in water.
For Palestinian communities that suffer water shortages and require Israeli approval to increase pumping of shared natural water resources, an agreement to increase water sales from Israel to the Palestinian Authority by 50 percent annually will dramatically improve lives and livelihoods without creating water shortages on the Israeli side.
This work to mediate peace through Israeli-Palestinian water sharing should be commended and continued. To ensure that the US does not undercut its own efforts, the Trump administration must re-evaluate some of its Middle East policies from a water security perspective.
Illustration: Mountain people
For example, the draft Taylor Force Act, which prohibits US aid to the West Bank and Gaza, does not exempt water programs.
How might cuts to UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) funding affect a water crisis in Gaza that is already severe? Any further reduction in Palestinian access to water could destabilize the region.
The US clearly recognizes the importance of international water security, having recently released its Global Water Strategy, which coordinates the work of 16 US government agencies and private partners.
The Israeli government recognizes water as a security issue as well, and that is a potential game-changer in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
For the Palestinian government, the priority is to increase water provision to meet basic needs, supporting economic growth as well as its aspirations for a state with the right to access and develop its own resources.
Israel is proud of its leading role in advancing technologies that can economically produce large quantities of drinking water from the salty Mediterranean Sea. Seventy percent of Israel’s drinking water is produced through desalinization and 85 percent of its wastewater is treated and reused to meet agricultural needs. Once-arid Israel no longer need suffer water shortages.
A logical next step, beyond water sales, would be to negotiate a fair allocation of the natural water resources that Israelis and Palestinians share, thus solving one of the core issues plaguing the peace process.
However, both sides have shortsightedly refused to negotiate over natural water reallocation, wanting any water deal to remain part of a negotiation on other final-status issues, like borders and refugees.
Israeli politicians insist that a better water deal for the Palestinians must be matched by Palestinian compromises on refugees.
Palestinian politicians argue that a fair water agreement would make the Israeli side look good, and say that they cannot afford to allow the need for a water deal to relieve pressure to resolve other issues.
Both sides contend that, without also agreeing on borders and settlements, they will not know which natural water resources belong to whom.
These arguments ring hollow and, for both sides, the costs of continuing to hold water hostage are simply too high. Water, like money, is fungible.
As long as all agree that negotiating over water rights involves cross-border waters — the Coastal Aquifer lies beneath parts of Israel and all of Gaza, the Mountain Aquifer underlies Israel and the West Bank, and the Jordan River shares borders — borders, settlements, refugees and security arrangements are not issues that must be determined in advance of a water agreement.
The clock is ticking. Climate change, decreasing natural waters and increasing pollution are all taking their toll. In the West Bank, about 60 million cubic meters of untreated sewage annually pollute the Mountain and Coastal Aquifers, streams and the Mediterranean Sea.
In Gaza, the flood of untreated sewage is so great that groundwater is no longer potable, and most beaches in Gaza and some in neighboring Israel have been forced to close.
Twice, Gaza’s sewage crisis has necessitated the shutdown of a nearby Israeli desalination plant, threatening the very technology that can ensure the region has enough water.
Lack of access to safe water and inadequate sanitation leads to the spread of preventable diseases, none of which recognize political borders, as untreated wastewater flows into cross-border streams and valleys, and the Jordan River.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed concern about the risk of an epidemic of cholera, or another infectious disease in Gaza, and argued for the provision of more quality water to avoid public health, environmental and national security threats to Israel.
The logic of leading peace through water diplomacy is further strengthened when one considers the broader instability of the region.
Advancing regional water projects, such as a master plan for the development of water and sanitation in the Jordan Valley, and an increased water trade that does not sacrifice water rights, present more opportunities to help stabilize the situation.
Water scarcity was a causal element of the conflict in Syria and, now, with Syrian refugees flooding into neighboring Jordan, economic opportunities for both the refugees and the local population are paramount if we are to avoid further regional unrest. Water is required.
Clearly, the fair and efficient allocation of the region’s fresh water could unlock an important path to greater stability.
Conversely, the sustainability of any Middle East peace agreement will be compromised if water resources are not allocated fairly and managed efficiently.
We urge the Trump administration to think outside the box and, in the interests of a more stable Middle East, to prioritize water projects.
Israelis and Palestinians need a sustainable path to peace based on mutual respect and recognition. By advancing a policy that affects every life, every day, we can restore hope in the possibility of peace, one glass at a time.
Gidon Bromberg, Nada Majdalani and Munqeth Mehyar are the co-directors of EcoPeace Middle East. The opinions expressed here are their own.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath