Water for peace? Obama's ridiculous suggestion for Israel

[Mali]

A mini-essay on the topic of peace in the middle-east. Feel free to disagree completely!

*****************************************************************

"President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war." -CNN

First of all, it should be noted that the Golan Heights (part of the land in question), has very little to do with Palestine but rather everything to do with Syria. Therefore, the Golan should have nothing to do with a successful Palestinian state and negotiations about Palestinian territory.

Now that this is clear, I will give three reasons that Israel should never agree to such a concession.

1. Water

2. Water

3. Water

Ok, I guess that is only one reason, but it is sufficient.

The current territory of the Golan Heights borders the "Kinneret" or the Sea of Galilee (most of you will recognize this as the place where Jesus walked on water). Pre-1967, the western border of the Sea of Galilee was Israel and the eastern border was Syria. This body of freshwater supplies most of the drinking water available to the citizens of Israel. In the early sixties, Syria made clear that sharing such an important source of water was impossible and attempted to divert the headwaters of the Sea of Galilee to cause drought and suffering in Israel. These and other tensions are what led up to the 1967 war in the first place, which Israel won (against multiple countries). As a result of the loss, Syria lost access to the Golan Heights and the Galilee. Whomever controls Golan controls Galilee. Whomever controls Galilee controls the major body of freshwater.

If for one moment we take water out of the equation, the area has two very important aspects which Israel must consider. Tourism: The biblical importance of the area - combined with its unique geographic characteristics - brings in travelers from around the world. These travelers would likely not visit Israel at all if their destination meant traversing a border with a country that is experiencing civil unrest, is aggressive towards the west, and is a state sponsor of terrorism. Furthermore, the area has extreme strategic importance for the Israeli military due to the height of the Golan and its subsequent view and access to the entire region.

However, these are secondary concerns to the issue of access to fresh water. In the desert, water is worth more than oil, more than gold, and more than the political support of the USA. Water is life. To expect Israel to cede territory back to Syria (remember we are discussing Syria, not Palestine) and making such an expectation the basis for peace-talks will surely guarantee the failure of negotiations.

If peace is the goal of all negotiators in the region, then why must such pre-conditions be set? Let's get together and talk about peace. Everyone put their missiles away, lower the sights of your rifles, and stop killing each other. Let's put an end to children's programming that encourages the mass murder of Israelis. Let's all stop blowing up civilians on a bus. That is the foundation of peace... not setting a pre-condition to cede territory that was lost in war 45 years ago by Syria. Yes, that is Syria... I am not talking about Palestine. Returning to 1967 is a return to war, not a new foundation for peace.

The other areas may be open to debate. I am referring to Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Israel will not withdraw from Jerusalem, nor the Golan, nor will it give up its freshwater for peace. Access to water is a foundation for the health and the economy of world regions, most of all in the middle-east. Obama should consider the issue further before making such statements which imply ignorance of the geopolitics of water.

[Pali]

A well-made point - access to certain strategic resources is often ignored by outsiders looking in on conflicts, and it absolutely should not be; a lasting peace between two parties cannot be maintained if only one of those parties has access to something both require to survive/prosper.

Personally, I've long thought that the creation of Israel in the first place was a huge mistake, and the West (particularly the US) being perceived by Arabs as unflinchingly supportive of Israel no matter its actions only makes things worse... as did our habit of supporting regional dictators who were pro-Israel regardless of how badly they treated their citizens. I'm not convinced that long-term peace in this region is even possible, much less likely to happen anytime soon.

[KRins]

When Israel was created... we screwed up. We should have just given them Florida or something... Yeah it doesn't have the historical factor to Israelis, but at least they wouldn't have to worry about suicide bombings and rocket attacks.

[Pali]

It's got the historical factors to Muslims and Christians too - but since they didn't get Holocausted, they didn't get the make-up present.

Also, Islam and Christianity being evangelical religions caused them to stretch across more ethnicities than Judaism - was still pretty easy then to treat Jew as another race alongside white and black.

[f0xx]

but at least they wouldn't have to worry about suicide bombings and rocket attacks.

You realize jews brought that upon themselves? When you get a country for free, and you constantly eat up from the borders of your neighbors, little by little, you can't expect anything good. The problem here is that the countries that suffered from the creation of Israel are too weak (poor) to fight back with real war, so they have nothing else to rely upon but terrorism.

The situation in that region there is a very delicate one. I don't think that was the best place to create an Israeli state to begin with.... but who knows. Perhaps that's the exact reason it was created there at first place.

[Balgashang]

Wow foxx, just wow.

[Mali]

You realize jews brought that upon themselves? When you get a country for free, and you constantly eat up from the borders of your neighbors, little by little, you can't expect anything good. The problem here is that the countries that suffered from the creation of Israel are too weak (poor) to fight back with real war, so they have nothing else to rely upon but terrorism.

Without getting too off topic from my original post, I would like to make a statement that Israel was not something that was free. No one gave Israel to the jews. No one fought the 1948 Arab-Israeli war for them. They founded the country, and after much political ill-will around the world achieved recognition.

I would also like to note that almost 20% of Israel is made up of Arabs, which have access to everything the country has to offer. Meanwhile, you will not find any significant percentage of Jews in the surrounding Arab countries, or even in regions that make up the middle-east, including North Africa, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. This is because all of these countries are hostile to Jews. So there is a real imbalance between who can live where and with what rights.

I would also like to note that Israel is much more progressive as far as maternal and child heath indicators are concerned, which include infant and maternal mortality. These are often reflective of general womens rights and intellectual freedoms of a country, both of which if positive will lead to an increase to health status all around. Israel, with its limited resources, contributes to the world community in medicine and in technology. It is a very nice place to be compared to surrounding territories.

My final point is that these posts are not about the rights and wrongs of the founding of Israel, but rather about the geopolitics of water. No country would agree to give up what amounts to nearly a third of its freshwater just for the chance to talk about peace. Setting ultimatums and pre-conditions prior to peace negotiations dooms them before they even start. If Israel's neighbors wanted peace, there could be peace today. If all surrounding countries put down their weapons, Israel would not attack. If Israel put down their weapons and opened up their borders, they would be over-run within weeks and destroyed.

While we are on the topic of water, however, it should be noted that much of this resource is shared with Jordan and with Palestine already, through the Jordan river. Israel is not hogging all the water, but it will not give up its control of the source of that water. It is much too important of a resource for them to cede, right or wrong. As I mentioned in my original post, it is a ridiculous suggestion that Israel go back to its 1967 borders which were taken during war 45 years ago. Taken partly because Syria attempted to divert the headwaters of the Sea of Galilee.

The piece of land that makes up Israel is less than the size of New Jersey (even with the 1967 lands). Compare that to the Arab middle-east and you will see that the conflict is less about land, and more about kicking the jews out of the region. Again, this can be seen by evaluating the percentages of arabs living in Israel and comparing that with the percentage of jews living in the greater middle east.

[Pali]

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you on the water issue, Mali.

No one gave Israel to the jews. No one fought the 1948 Arab-Israeli war for them. They founded the country, and after much political ill-will around the world achieved recognition.

Eh... mostly accurate. The UN supported partitioning the area into Jewish and Arab states at the end of the British Mandate (and basically ignored that the entire Arab League was against this), and Israel was recognized very quickly by the US, USSR, and much of the world. Sure, they fought their war for independence, but they also received outside support in the form of money from US donors and military equipment from Stalin.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the lack of Jews in surrounding areas.

[Mali]

The relevance is that on land that Israel took, such as the Golan, there is a thriving Arab population that has freedom of religion, access to the water, and primary benefits of living in the country. This is not reciprocal, and any territory Israel gives back will very likely be hostile to Jewish residents and visitors.

[Pali]

Well, it's somewhat debatable that Israel truly has freedom of religion... AFAIK Judaism is the state religion and Israel lacks any real representation of it's sizable Muslim population. But you'll get no argument from me that it being surrounded by other theocracies being a bad thing in pretty much every respect.

[Demiterracotta]

I think they should just take the entire region, cut everything in half down to the bedrock then load half into one set of dump trucks, half into the other, and say "Here, mobile holy sites! Now you don't have to fight over this stupid crap!"

[Imoutgoodbye]

Michigan is willing to give up its water supply. We're looking at....FRACKING!?!? :eek: I should say they...I'm not a fan of fracking. If Michigan is going to do that, let's just ship our water supply to Israel. That'll settle everything.

[inscribed]

yeah that was a ridiculous and moronic request by Obama. from one displaced people to another, I fully support Israel and their ability to not only reclaim their own land from hostiles, but also become a significant world power in a short amount of time.

Speaking of reclaimed lands, just wait until we stop spending all of our stolen white man money on alcohol.... Florida will be ours once more! i'll say it now, i'll be more than willing to go work for a Seminole Air Force, should the need arise.

[Pali]

I've always found the concept that Jews had some sort of right to the land a bit puzzling... At best, Hebrew tribes had control over it a few thousand years ago. Surely property claims expire in that period of time.

[Mali]

At best, Hebrew tribes had control over it a few thousand years ago.

Historically, there were kingdoms there far beyond the tribal stage of civilization.

Surely Israel has more right to the land than say the British, whom controlled the area prior to the Israeli declaration of independence.

It is not like one day it was Arab land, and then one day there was Israel. The land had been occupied by the British, by the Ottomans, and by several other custodians throughout time. Jews had been settling in the area for hundreds of years prior to the founding of Israel. The holocaust was not the origin of the country, but rather caused a diaspora that greatly increased the number of Jews in the area looking for a place to go. Suffice to say, no one gave Israel to the jews, and after the declaration the land was won in warfare against great odds, gaining international legitimacy.

Israel has just as much right to exist as does the United States, Canada, Spain, or any other country that laid a flag down and fought for it, perhaps more so due to the historical roots which as I noted before was much more than a tribal occupation.

The peace process as it is currently is doomed to fail for one reason: Israel has no partner in the peace process. Whereas the Israeli people recognize the Palestinian right to a homeland, neither the Palestinians nor the surrounding Arab countries recognize the right of Israel to exist at all. As you mentioned earlier, the Arab league refused to accept a dichotomous solution to the problem of land in the middle east in the 1940's. That was 60 years ago, and Israel is now well established and contributes much more to the world community than the surrounding nations combined. As I mentioned in my original post, they will not give up what amounts to a third of their freshwater for the illusion of peace. Especially when this fresh water is already shared with Jordan and Palestine.

In any case, my post was not about the history of Israel or whether it should be there or not. Your opinion on that does not matter. Rather, my intention was to show the ignorance of Obama's political maneuvering, which thus far has served to annoy both sides rather than bringing them closer to a sustainable solution.

[Pali]

I wasn't referring to the idea that since they won independence they deserve it - I'm fine with that (edit: I don't dispute Israel's right to exist at all, but I see a distinction between Israel as a country and Jews as an ethnic/religious group, and it's the latter I was talking about). I was referring to the concept that it is theirs by right of having lived there thousands of years ago, that it's their ancestral home or something (which has not been explicitly endorsed by anyone here, though I've heard it plenty from other places - I should have been clearer, but was posting on my Ipad from work on a smoke break )... as you rightly said, that bit of land has been occupied and lived in by many different groups at many different times, and going by whose ancestors lived where at what time in the past is, I think, a terrible way to decide who should get what territory now.

While I also agree that Israel contributes more to the world than the surrounding countries, it is also worth noting that those surrounding countries have long been ruled by autocrats (many that the US supported or still supports) that keep their populations ignorant and unemployed but the ruling families and religious orders very wealthy - very fertile ground for violent ideological extremism to flourish, not at all so for social progress. In a strange way, it'd be nice to see the Arab world go back in time a thousand years.

EDIT: I also agree with your analysis of a major problem with the peace process - but it is also worth noting that continuously expanding settlements in contested areas hasn't won Israel any points in the Arab world. I don't think they deserve the majority of the blame here at all, but they're not saints either.

As for Obama's maneuvering - didn't listen to the speech myself, but from what I've read of it... I'm right there with ya.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Political rhetoric is all it is. I wouldn't take what he said to carry any kind of weight whatsoever. Because it doesn't.

[Mali]

it is also worth noting that those surrounding countries have long been ruled by autocrats (many that the US supported or still supports) that keep their populations ignorant and unemployed but the ruling families and religious orders very wealthy - very fertile ground for violent ideological extremism to flourish, not at all so for social progress.

This. Although, Hamas was "democratically" elected. The quotation marks express skepticism about the role that murdering political opponents and intimidating voters play in democratic elections.

[Pali]

This. Although' date=' Hamas was "democratically" elected. The quotation marks express skepticism about the role that murdering political opponents and intimidating voters play in democratic elections.[/quote']

Hell, Mubarak kept getting like 80% or so of the vote in Egypt, so they must've loved him!

[samag08]

Just doing some trolling, Hi folks,

-My 2 cents on the matter.

-I think it would have been much better had our president taken along the lines of "Israel is a nation of it's own, and by that right it is up to them how they conduct this business. We shall have to wait and see for ourselves, the outcome and THEN decide how we feel about that."

-Perhaps the US should give back Louisiana to the French, California to Mexico, etc. How would we take it if supposed allies of ours rudely made claims and interruptions regarding the affairs of our nation BEFORE we have made any final declarations? It is always wise to consider other points of view before forcing our opinions upon the world.

Just some thoughts.