Water restrictions in the Palestinian Territories

Since the erection of the "separation wall" or more commonly known as the apartheid wall, 35,000 meters of irrigation network were ceased, 11,400 Dunams of agricultural land were confiscated, 100,000 ancient olive trees were destroyed. This impacted life, agriculture, freedom of movement, water usage, and income. It has also aloud for Jewish-only settlement expansions in the more fertile areas of the West Bank.

After the occupation of the West Bank, Israel took control of all water resources and prohibited Palestinians from water development and drilling the required infrastructure. To date not a single permit issued for agriculture or domestic use in Palestinian areas has been granted.

The "separation wall" aims at isolating more natural water wells owned by Palestinians.

More than 31 natural water wells producing 3.8 million cubic meters that serve 1000's of Palestinians for agriculture and domestic use has been confiscated. 

While the annual rainfall accumulation in the region is 47.8% in Palestinian Territories, 29.7% in Israel, 22.5% in Jordan, Israel's domestic water use per capita reaches more than 52%, leaving 30% for Jordan and 18% for the Palestinian Territories.

This is a very good documentary about the "wall of  hate".

Why is Israel Considered a "Rogue" State?

There are a number of issues concerning Israel's commitment to adhere to international law. The jurisdiction of these concerns fall beyond Israel's own foreign policy and what it interprets as justified. Since the surrounding Palestinian Territories are not actually part of Israel's sovereignty, the international community has the authority to determine whether or not Israel is defying international law, regardless of what Israel defines for its own rules of engagement.

There are a number of concerns that the international community have raised, which Israel has ignored or refuses to take part in, which is why many deem Israel a "rogue" state.

Currently, Israel undergoes what is considered illegal settlement expansion in the territories it has occupied since 1967. These areas are found in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Occupation itself is not illegal, however the means in which Israel conducts its occupation of these territories has been deemed illegal based on the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There are currently about 500,000 Jewish colonists living in approximately 200 colonies in the West Bank. During the seven years of the Oslo peace process, the number of Israeli colonizers in the Occupied Territories increased by more than 50 percent. (AL Sep. 8. 2003. MDE 15/085/2003)

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

‘. . The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies.’

The UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1998 reiterated its view that "Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not only illegal under contemporary international law but are an obstacle to peace and to the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population in the region."

According to Amnesty International. "the Israeli Army has destroyed some 4,000 Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as vast area of cultivated land, hundreds of factories and other commercial properties. roads and public buildings.” (MDE 15/091/2003)

Article 53, Fourth Geneva Convention states:

‘Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons... is prohibited.

Employees and mobile units of the PRCS and ICRC are regularly detained and harassed. Noteworthy violations include: A PRCS ambulance used as an assault shield by the IDF (Jan. 8, 2004): A tank assault on a PRCS ambulance, shattering the front windshield and injuring the driver (Jan. 28, 2004): During the destruction of the Jenin Refugee Camp in April, 2002. the ICRC was prevented from offering services to the injured and dying for six days.

Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention states:

'...Mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked. . .'

Article 24 of the First Geneva Convention states:

'Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick... shall be respected and protected in all circumstances…'

More notably, Israel is one of only four states in the world who refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The reason Israel refuse to be part in this treaty is because it has an undeclared arsenal of an estimated 80 nuclear weapons. The fact that the US Congress and Netanyahu refuses to address this issue while trying to punish Iran who is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is developing legitimate civilian nuclear energy under this signed treaty is hugely hypocritical.

In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.

Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapons, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.

What incentives does Israel offer Jewish settlers to live in the Occupied Palestinian Territories rather than Israel?

Jewish settlers in Occupied Palestinian Territories are quite different to those who live in Israel Proper, or even the Jewish diaspora.

Those who live in Tel Aviv are known to be more involved in their own personal civil challenges on a day to day basis. They love their shopping and are more concerned about the increase in housing prices than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Regarding the conflict, there are common differences which mainly depend on whether they are secular Jews or religious Jews.

American Jews have a definitive split in opinions between leftists and conservative right-wingers that generally revolve around either supporting the BDS movement (leftists) or have the impression that Israel is a tiny state surrounded by hostile Arab countries who want to push Jews to the sea (right-wingers).

Jewish settlers are a very different kind of people. They are known to be the "pioneers" of the future Eretz Israel, and the "front line" of the land expansions. They require little incentives from the Israeli government and, more astonishingly, sometimes break Israeli law when erecting their own makeshift homes which are unapproved by Israeli building authorities.

Many are radical in nature, banding together as thugs who's primary goal is to make Palestinians feel unwelcome in the hopes they leave the land for them. Settlers are equipped with M-16 assault rifles and are allowed to use them at their own discretion.

Here are some examples of the radicalism:

"We killed Jesus and we're proud of it"

Settler woman & children harass Palestinian homes

Settler children encouraged to harass Palestinians:

Report from Aljazeera about the constant harassment

Population of Jews and Arabs in Israel, West Bank and Gaza

Nationality	Location	Population
Jews	Israel	6.20 million
Jews	West Bank Settlements	0.53 million
Arabs	Israel	1.57 million
Arabs	West Bank	2.50 million
Arabs	Gaza	1.20 million
Arabs	Refugees	4.50 million

Total Population
Jews	6.73 million
Arabs	9.77 million

Is the theory of the Nile to the Euphrates a realistic possibility?

Regarding a recent article called In defense of reason, not Israel by Amr Yossef, an Adjunct Professor of Political Science, there are a few points that can be made about his comments.

Most of his article is very well written and provides a realistic perspective of the situation between Israel and Egypt especially when considering that there are many conspiracy theories regarding the two nations that provide an inaccurate outlook on their relationship. That is because they are exactly what the name suggests: "theories" without tangible evidence or without factual analysis to support any of the accusations mentioned.

However, there is one vital note that Amy Yossef makes that needs to be examined carefully.

"Israel is not interested in a territorial expansion that would go far beyond its capabilities."

This statement is absolutely correct, and as the world witnessed in the events after the six day invasion of 1967, Israel clearly could not defend and maintain the newly occupied territories. The reality is that it wasn't ready to occupy Egypt's Sinai, Lebanon's south, Syria's Golan Heights, and the entire Palestinian territories comprising of the West Bank, Gaza strip, and East Jerusalem because it provided an economic strain on the state especially at such an early stage of its establishment. .

The problem with this statement though is that it does not rule out the fact that the region is actually witnessing territorial expansion and annexation within East Jerusalem and the West Bank today that has not ceased since those six critical days.

One can safely say that almost 45 years on, East Jerusalem and the West Bank are definitely within Israel's capability to annex, otherwise current settlement constructions would not be occurring.

While the quick adolescent approach to occupation proved to be a failure, the more mature and steady approach to increasing the Israeli Empire has proven to be extremely successful, especially when, as Amr Yossef put it, "Israel is satisfied with the current status-quo", and no peace with the Palestinians will help Israel continuously expand.

What no one has asked is whether or not Israel has actually defined a limit to the ever-growing expanding territory. There is no evidence to suggest that Israel will stop at the West Bank and East Jerusalem especially when the state has been internationally condemned for annexing regions within these territories in the first place.

If the Israeli government simply cannot abide by International Law to halt the current illegal activity of expanding its territory, there is no evidence to suggest that there is any limit at all. This raises issues on whether or not a reason to prove the theory of the Greater Israel being from the Nile to the Euphrates is relevant, but rather that a counter to this theory is necessary when considering Israel's current behaviour.

As Israel's economy grows and their military strength increases, there is nothing to suggest they wouldn't try to continue to expand on more Arab land within their "capabilities" so long as they have the ability to do so.


The only thing that has in fact changed since 1967 is that Israel has learnt that conquering its surrounding land in only six days is simply not a sustainably reality.

Civilian Casualties: Palestinian / Israeli Conflict

Based on the information provided from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitatian Affairs online database, the data was exported and generated as reports as shown below.

The data compiled includes casualties caused by direct Israeli / Palestinian conflict, internal Palestinian conflict, indirectly related to Israeli Palestinian conflict, reckless handling of explosives, and disputed responsibility within Israel, West Bank and Gaza strip.

Hamas will accept the 1967 Borders and a Truce with Israel

This post is based on the on the following article: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=386651

There is a significant quote Zahhar mentions here:

Hamas was ready to recognize a Palestinian state "on any part of Palestine," for the first time publicly steering away from prior Hamas demands that the modern Palestinian state must be established "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea."

This is definitely a positive step. It is not the best possible scenario for Israel, but just as many party officials in the right-winged Likud party don't recognize Palestinian statehood, Hamas will also have to deal with pressures from their own people to end the current stalemate and find a lasting solution.

Mutual recognition is most likely going to be the highest priority that will need to be sorted out when negotiations resume. The whole concept of making peace is to deal with an organisation that is not a friend or ally, and making strong compromises which both parties have to work on.

Shimon Peres himself, owner of a Nobel Peace Prize, had the following to say:

"Even when I began negotiation with Arafat, they said: 'There's no chance'... I think the same thing about Hamas. The name does not interest me, what matters is the content. Anything can happen, because Hamas has problems too, and it's not so strong... If they [Hamas and Fatah] want to unite, let them unite... The two camps are trying to unite. It is not our business, we don't want to intervene in their decision to unite. What is our business is that the West Bank will not become a Gaza, we would like Gaza to become a West Bank"

The president said it would be better for Israel to focus its energy on building upwards, rather than expanding into Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want for the capital of their future state. "You can sometimes house 10,000 people in one tower," he said. "Today the whole world is building vertically."

[http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=386772]

He makes a very critical point here to the Israeli government, and that ultimately settlements should be halted. That is why the Palestinians stopped negotiating in the first place; that is why Hamas refuse to accept Israel's current legitimacy which can't even uphold its own Balfour Declaration that states that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. Defying this Declaration is defying their legitimacy.

Current settlement construction implies that Likud are not willing to recognise Palestine. They have just made an announcement on 19th May to build up to 1,500 settlement units in the East Jerusalem settlements of Har Homa and Pisgat Ze'ev.

Therefore, they, like Hamas, need to start reconsidering the complete perspective of land sharing and ultimate peace in the region.

Palestinian Refugees return home after 63 years

Justifying reactions to the murder of Israeli settlers

The five members of an Israeli family that were murdered in their beds in the West Bank settlement area of Itamar cannot be justified in any way. There is no excuse for the cause of such a horrific act of injustice. A murder is a murder, whether it is an isolated incident from an individual act of violence or a war crime committed by a government. This particular attack was blamed on the Palestinians, sparking a huge manhunt and international condemnation, but nothing was actually confirmed as to who was responsible for the slaying and what organisation they represented.

Equally as condemned was the reaction of an immediate approval of 500 more illegal settlements in the West Bank over land that would potentially be owned by 500 Palestinian families. Not to mention the families that have already suffered from the already existing illegal settlements that were constructed in Itamar in the first place. Is one family more important than hundreds more?

The construction approval is a poor attempt to justify, and worse, change the focus of the overall situation that is currently causing serious strain for both the Arab and the Jewish communities.

Israelis say they understand that they have had a "checkered" history but have no reason to continue peace negotiations because of this particular incident, yet again pointing the finger at the Arab authorities and their responsibilities of upholding security - ironically, security which they have no power to enforce because of Israeli occupation.

Arabs already agree on how poorly Arab dictators treat their people, and how Hamas and the PLO can't even unite their own people - that is exactly the reason why there are protests and revolutions currently happening all over the Middle East. Israelis keep making the same age-old mistake by claiming that although they might have done acts that would be considered "questionable" and that there is wrong on both sides, the fundamental issues lay with the Arab leaders failing to contain their people and prevent horrific acts such as those that occurred in Itamar.

Based on their arguments, if there really is wrong on both sides, there is no real attempt to show a strong correlation. Since Arabs are protesting against their own leaders - and thus agreeing with Israeli arguments, would Israelis themselves also agree in protesting against their own government for the horrific attacks made on Palestinian people in the West Bank? Would the people of Israel denounce their government for the slaying of countless other families in Gaza? Would they stand out with banners describing what their government has actually done which has resulted in the violent reactions they have received because of the injustice of their occupation?

Currently, there are no real attempts to propose a lasting solution for a two-state resolution especially since the US has recently vetoed a decision to stop illegal settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The reality is that there never was any intent on giving back that land, regardless of what a handful of Israelis and their own empty philosophical ideas have attempted to present as a solution. Some even have the gaul to suggest that the borders of negotiation should be drawn around the already existing settlements, and these suggestions existed long before the Itamar incident had occurred.

So ultimately if we peal away the deception, we would come to the conclusion that this incident was simply a perfect excuse to continue justifying the ongoing expansions of illegal settlements.

Reality shows that Israelis don't really want peace, they want the entire land, and they are already 90% there anyway. If they argue contrary to this, the only evidence to prove that their statements are true, is whether or not they are willing to protest against their own Israeli settlements, and demand a halt on construction of new homes as well as the removal of the existing homes to give an opportunity for the Palestinian people to build their own sovereign state.

In hindsight, the Itamar incident could have been avoided if this peaceful decision was made by Israel a long time ago.

The Solution to the Middle East Crisis

There is a the fundamental problem that exists in the region with a lack of equal opportunity for both Arabs and Jews. If the Palestinian people are provided with an opportunity to a sovereign state of their own without occupation, they would have reason to elect a party responsible to govern their land and deal with its social infrastructure, which would ultimately outweigh their reasons to "resist occupation" or react to what they believe is the denial of their human rights.

Israelis already have an independently established state, yet it still remains very volatile. This dilemma would naturally be dissolved when the Palestinian people no longer have a reason to react, which therefore means resistance groups like Hamas would cease to exist since there would be nothing to "resist". This would be Israel's best opportunity to defeat their counter-parts in the Gaza Strip.

The question is, how can equal opportunity be established? The following points would provide the best solution:

1. Right of return for all Palestinians refugees, including those who originally lived within the current Israeli borders becoming Israeli citizens. That involves most of the 4.5 million displaced people having the opportunity to rebuild their homes if they were originally demolished.

2. Implementing pure democracy in a two-state scenario, without racial discrimination, meaning that a majority vote for any political body to govern Israel and the new Palestine. That includes the possibility of an Arab President ruling Israel if that is what the people's majority want. The same would obviously be implemented for the new Palestine if a Jew wanted to run for elections with the backing of the majority. The very definition of apartheid is the minority ruling the majority based on race or religion.

3. No boundary redrawing to take into account any settlements, because all have been deemed illegitimate by International Law. Palestinian citizenship would be required for those settlers, and the land would remain part of the new Palestine. The pre-1967 borders are already a large concession considering that it is probably more realistic to implement something similar to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 based on populous, however most Palestinians are already willing to accept the armistice green lines.

4. Equal opportunity in both Palestine and Israel to establish a defense force for their respective states, just like any other sovereign state. Weapons can be supplied to both states regardless of who supplies them so long as they are legal. (Probably meaning the confiscation of grad rockets... and of course adhering to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as confiscation of white-phosphorous chemical weapons). Every peaceful country has the right to defend its sovereignty.

These elements would naturally dissolve organisations like Hamas and any other radical group when freedom of opportunity and free elections are given to the people. Reactionists would cease to exist when people believe they have a chance to live a normal life.

A good first step would be an immediate halt to any new construction of settlements in Palestinian territory since they are not "defensive strategies" nor are they provoked reactions. You can't negotiate slices of a pizza if one person is already eating from it.

The above points would define the inalienable rights for the Palestinian people (UN Resolution 3236), and would naturally define the inalienable rights for the Israeli people.

Regarding these points, in order for justice to prevail there has to be a like-for-like. One of the following options would then be required:

• A full withdrawal of settlers back to Israel and the millions of Palestinian refugees squeezed into West-bank, Gaza strip and East-Jerusalem.
• Otherwise the Palestinian refugees should be returned back to their own lands even if they fall within Israeli borders at least as citizens of Israel. This would mean that Israeli settlers could stay in Palestinian land as citizens of the new Palestine.

The latter would have the millions of refugees outnumber the Israeli population, and if pure democracy is implemented, meaning that there is no discrimination as to who can be nominated for Presidency, the state would be ruled by a majority vote which would most likely result in Arab leadership.

Obviously that means that the Jews no longer get what they want with regards to their traditional prophecies of a "Promised Land", so the former solution would most likely be more practical to them. That ultimately means they would have to oblige to a full withdrawal of the settlers camped within the Palestinian territories to fit the millions of displaced refugees into the relatively smaller patches of Arab land.

The problem with this is that a full withdrawal of settlers has not been a popular concept in the Jewish quarter, and that is the source of the dilemma when peace talks and negotiations fail.

The current situation clearly shows that ancient traditions cannot be forced into the region regardless of the overwhelming population, especially when those traditions do not cater for the interests of the multicultural society that undeniably exist in the region. It has evidently resulted in the pushing out of Arabs, with a further pushing out because of the illegal settlements and the current situation gives very little option for a lasting stability in the region; hence why there is a growing number of reactionists.

Arabs are asked not to look at past acts of systematic deportation and genocide so that there can be a viable solution moving forward, yet Israelis tend to look to the past when considering their own "Promised Land" which only sees fit to benefit their own Jewish interests.

If cultures and beliefs can provide open-minded approaches towards equal opportunity for humanity in general and not for one race it would definitely be possible to have a scenario where both can co-exists, just as it did centuries ago.

The Israeli "Wall of Hate"

The following documentary provides accurate details and statistics of the concrete wall that has been erected around the West Bank, Palestine.

Israeli Apartheid - CBS: Is Peace Out of Reach?

CBS Reports on the events unfolding with the two-state resolution looking ever more unlikely.