![]() Tuesday, Nov 30, 2004 |
| International | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | International
By Atul Aneja
MANAMA, NOV. 29. Short of Jerusalem, the international highway starting from the Israeli border post with Jordan turns east towards Ramallah. As the road snakes through the undulating bone-dry surroundings, the first glimpse of Israel's infamous wall can be caught. Much construction activity is visible around the barrier, which is made of grey concrete slabs, set against each other for several kilometres. Behind it, a short distance away on the hilltop, an Israeli settlement comes into view. In sharp contrast to the barren surroundings, its white buildings, with prominent red roofs, stand out. The Israeli Government has described the wall, which, when completed would run to 622 km, as a security barrier intended for keeping out Palestinian suicide bombers from mainland Israel. But the route taken by the wall is a clear indication that Israel is using it to reinforce its occupation of the West Bank. Israel had occupied the Palestinian territories along the west bank of the Jordan river and Gaza, in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
View contested
Contesting the official Israeli view, Ismail Daiq, the head of the Ramallah based Agricultural Development Association (PARC) told The Hindu, that the main purpose of the wall, in its northern segment, was to consolidate Israeli hold over water. He pointed out that the path taken by the wall in the north cuts off Palestinian access to the groundwater in the western aquifer.
Strategy to monopolise
Palestinians, in fact, see the construction of the northern wall as the culmination of a strategy to monopolise the waters of the western aquifer-the largest water resource in the area after the Jordan river. The upstream segment of the western aquifer is in the West Bank, while the downstream section is in Israel. Soon after the 1967 occupation, the Israelis effectively forbade Palestinians to drill new wells in the aquifer, fearing that such a practice would reduce availability of water in Israel. But the construction of the wall has also cut-off Palestinian access to many of the wells, which were dug before the war. The wall has affected around 50 wells causing Palestinian communities to depend on costly and unreliable water tankers.
Control over aquifer
Abdel Rahman Al Tamimi of the Palestinian Hydrology Group points out that control over the western aquifer has also been dictated by the Israeli practice of pushing illegal settlements in occupied territory. There are over 200 Israeli settlements in the West bank, resulting in the confiscation of 55 per cent of land. Dr. Daiq explained that by setting aside the water resources of the western aquifer behind the wall, the barrier has seriously undermined the prospects of reviving agriculture in the West Bank.
Pressure on land
"After the second Intifada, the pressure on land has increased and about 25 per cent of Palestinians depend on agriculture for their livelihood. But if these people are permanently cut-off from water, they would either starve or find employment as workers elsewhere.
The wall has also affected Palestinian rural communities in other ways.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in its analysis says that out of a total of 93,200 Palestinians occupying the most fertile part of the land, nearly 76,900 have been completely encircled by the wall.
The barrier, its says, has severely impeded people's access to their farms, jobs and services.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|