- Tel Aviv says its air is clean, but Israel's Environment Ministry thinks otherwise
- Obama: Israel has not made decision on Iran attack, but it is rightly concerned
- Final member of Damascus-based Hamas politburo leaves Syria
- Israeli cabinet approves construction of high-speed train line between Tel Aviv and Eilat
- Clinton calls Russia and China's veto of UN resolution on Syria a 'travesty'
Forthcoming Events
Supported by
Corporate & Associate Members
The Truth About Amnesty International's Israel Denying Water Report
Date:
2 December 2009
Background
Amnesty International released a report accusing Israel of illegally denying water to the Palestinians. Once again, the non-governmental organization is enjoying a halo effect where journalists report the accusations without question.
Yet the report is raising troubling questions about Amnesty:
Officials at the Israeli Water Authority told the Jerusalem Post they were never given an opportunity to present information to Amnesty researchers, nor respond to the Palestinian allegations. They also say the report's figures are deeply flawed.
NGO-Monitor claims Amnesty's report was timed to boost a campaign to boycott Israel. Indeed, a US speaking tour kicks off next week with Omar Barghouti addressing the Loyola Law School in LA on the topic -- surprise, surprise -- "Palestine: Thirsting for Justice. Israel’s Control of Water as a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing."
In addition to the widespread publicity afforded by AP, Reuters, and the BBC, Amnesty and the boycott movement scored a bonus with the Times of London, thanks to this over-the-top headline "World Agenda: Palestinians Suffer Under Israeli Water Torture
Below is Robin Shepard (ZCC's guest speaker on 9 December 2009) view on the report:
The UK branch of Amnesty plans to roadshow its latest report at a meeting on October 28 featuring the militantly anti-Zionist Ben White as its guest speaker. Amnesty is promoting White’s recently published book, “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide” on its website.
Since Amnesty is now implicitly endorsing the notion of Israel as an apartheid state, it should come as no surprise that the report adopts the Palestinian narrative of the wider conflict in its entirety.
Amnesty’s allegations centre on the amount of water available to Palestinians on the West Bank as compared to settlers. According to the Jerusalem Post, Amnesty did not even take the trouble to consult the Israeli Water Authority, something which in itself gives a clear impression of the agenda that underlies the latest report.
But impressions and suppositions are no longer necessary with Amnesty International, as the wording of the statement flagging up the report makes clear:
“Over more than 40 years of occupation, restrictions imposed by Israel on the Palestinians’ access to water have prevented the development of water infrastructure and facilities in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories], consequently denying hundreds of thousands of Palestinians the right to live a normal life, to have adequate food, housing, or health, and to economic development.”
Just a second. No one denies that the Palestinians live in conditions of economc backwardness. It would be no surprise, therefore, if their consumption of water were less than for the relatively wealthier Israelis. This is a sociological reality which applies globally. Try comparing American water consumption per capita with Mexico’s — (I haven’t seen the figures but I’d bet my wallet that the disparity is enormous). But even leaving that aside, note how Amnesty effortlessly and unashamedly apportions blame to the “more than 40 years of occupation”.
Now, just for the sake of argument, let us say that that the Amnesty view is one reasonable way of characterising the situation. It is certainly the way that the Palestinians would characterise it. But if we accept that as one way of characterising the situation let us also consider the following as another:
“There have been more than 60 years of rejectionism and terrorism by Palestinian and Arab leaders. This has had the derivative effects of both reducing their capacity to consume water at first world levels and of depriving them of the kind of statehood (offered on several occasions by Israel) which would allow them to take greater control of their own water resources in particular and their economic development in general”.
Being as objective as one possibly could be, I put it to readers that there are two narratives to contend with here. Personally, I believe there is overwhelming evidence to support the second of those two narratives. But that is not the point.
Amnesty International is bound by its constitution to be impartial. Yet in this instance, as in so many others where Israel is concerned, it has adopted hook, line and sinker one of of the two available narratives and simply erased the other from consideration.
That is not a sign of an organisation whose main priority is to promote an unbiased appraisal of an undoubtedly important humanitarian problem. It is a sign of an organisation whose underlying agenda is avowedly political and avowedly anti-Israeli.
I challenge anyone to provide an evidence-based counter-argument to my contention that that conclusion is now beyond all reasonable doubt.
To read the Amnesty report, click here: