Israeli Water Policy; Threat to Middle East Security in a Realistic Approach

پژوهش ‎های جغرافیای سیاسی

Article 4, Volume 3, Issue 4 - Serial Number 10, March 2019, Pages 101-123   

Document Type: مقالات علمی -پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/pg.v3i10.76659

Author

Mojtaba Attarzadeh^*

Isfahan University of Art

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Many tensions and conflicts over water resources have been recorded so far in the last century. For example, some studies have shown that over the past fifty years, more than 37 water tensions have taken place between different countries, resulting in military conflicts, of which more than 30 ones are pertaining to the Zionist conflicts over resources. Most of these conflicts took place between the Zionist regime and the Syria and Jordan in the 1950s and 1960s on the flow of water from the Jordan and Yarmouk rivers (Doleyatyr, 1995). These tensions have shown that due to the lack of water resources in the geopolitics of Israel, water supply a priority policies of the regime have been and, consequently, control over water resources in the Jordan River and all aquifers key as a minimum of its security and even if it withdraws from the occupied lands, it is thinking of controlling the water resources of the area, and in fact, without solving water problems, security measures would be impossible. This means that Israel will do everything to preserve its water resources, which is actually the source of its life. On this basis, Middle East experts believe that if a war between Arabs and Israel occurs in the next decade, most likely, it will be a war over water resources that threatens the security of the area.

Review of Literature

Mosallaynejad (2008) believes that the identification of any security processor would be based on the threat sign. If troops or threatening elements change, new conditions are created to counteract the threat. The first sign of environmental security threats can be seen in the limits of resource use. Currently, cannot be found any record for global changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, genetic diversity of species inhabiting the earth, and the cycle of vital chemicals in the oceans, the atmosphere, the biosphere are taking place, both in terms of size and track. Critical school theorists are therefore questioning if security has different priorities, so where is the health and survival of human society located.  
Mamouri and Kazemi (2011) state that the life of Israel depends on the water resources of the border regions, including the Lake Tiberia, the Jordan River, Yarmouk and Baniyas, and the occupied territories of the West Bank and south Lebanon. The Zionist regime is currently unable to survive without having the waters. They believe due to the issue of Lake Tabaria and water, it is impossible for Israel to return the Golan Heights, which was approved by the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament), to Syria, because of the supplies of Lake Tabaria water that  is vital to Israel,is located in the highlands and around Jabal al-Sheikh .

Method

The method of data gathering in this research, which is a fundamental one, is also a library and the method of inferential analysis. The purpose of investigation is the representation of realism in Israeli water security policy, which, despite widespread changes in policy, has been forced to pursue this policy due to water resources constraints in the regime's territories. In order to analyze this issue, the importance and status of water in international relations and policy are first discussed. And after proving the pivotal role of water in the political geography of the Middle East, Israeli policies on water will be analyzed based on a realistic approach to its decision-making. According to security theories, especially the neo-realists' theories, since the Zionist regime sees its stability and survival in terms of water resources at serious threat, it seeks to compensate in any possible way, although the effort would end the losses of its Arab neighbors.
Using an analytical-descriptive method with the assumption of water as one of the main elements of the national security of the Zionist regime, this paper seeks to utilize the major theories in the field of security, including the neo-realism school, the central role of water as an environmental determinant factor in the security structure of the regime is examined.

Results and Discussion

Realists believe that security is a threat to the survival or national interests of the state, and that it will lead to war, the collapse of the anarchic order and the balance of power. Therefore, water is considered as a source of power, and dehydration is considered a very serious and strategic issue that affects the economic and social development of nations and, as a result, determines political power. This group of experts from the state-focused security discourse perspective looks at the issue and believes that governments in deep trouble in terms of water may fight for water (Boozan, 2002)
The issue of wealth is one of the issues raised by Israel in the context of maintaining Israel's security for Zionist authorities. The Zionist regime is devoid of strategic depth due to its specific geographic location and vulnerability and has a severe vulnerability to security threats. Considering the occupied territories of Palestine as the geographical and political borders of Israel, this regime is also facing a severe shortage or even lack of "strategic depth" due to its severe geographical and geographical constraints. This increases the vulnerability of the regime that has a military and security structure and, beyond all kinds of military and security threats, also faces a shortage of water resources.
The occupiers believe that the regime's security will be secured only if it controls the surface and underground water resources of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon, and if not, its security is not guaranteed and it is under threat. The occupiers will only ensure their regime's security, which will have control over the surface and underground water of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon, and if this does not happen, its security has been threatened. Water security is one of the most important types of security in our time, and the Zionist movement, even before the formation of "Israel" and the signing of the Sykes Pico Agreement on the division of the region, took into account all the ways to extend the boundaries under the British mandate to include all surface and underground water resources in Palestine, southern Lebanon and the Syrian border.

Conclusion

Israel considers water not an economic resource, but as a political, military and security issue. The country has benefited from various methods of acquiring water resources in the region, such as coercion, threat, theft, and so on. The Zionist regime has, in many cases, also tried to leverage pressure and threats to achieve its goals in this regard. This strategy has been influential in Arab countries, so that some Arabic countries are granted special concessions to Israel. Relying on the power of the Zionist regime and the use of force, either explicitly, or by the threat of war, Israel has managed to raise in the region's water equations. So that the legitimacy of any contract in the region as long as Israel knows that contribution, should the contracts be considered, otherwise the parties in the implementation of the project will be­ in difficult. As the emphasis is on the military element, the element of coercion, has never been able to resolve the water problem of the Zionist regime.

Keywords

Security; Middle East; Water; neorealism; the Zionist regime

References

1. Ahadi, M. (2008). Geography of security of neighboring countries. Tehran, Iran: Shahid Sayyad Shirazi Education and Research Center. [In Persian]

2. Araghchi, Seyyed Abbas. (1393) Water Diplomacy; From Conflict to Cooperation. World Politics Quarterly, 3(4), 91-119. [In Persian]

3. Busan, Barrie. (2002) Middle East: A Contradictory Structure. Translated: Ahmad Reza Sadeghi, Quarterly Journal of Foreign Policy, 16(3), 633-680. [In Persian]

4. Buzan, B. & Weaver, E. (2009). Areas and magnitudes: the structure of international security. Translation by Rahman Ghahramanpour, Tehran, Iran: Strategic Studies Research Center. [In Persian]

5. David Oglo, Ahmed (1391). Strategic depth of Turkey's position on the international scene. Translated by Mohammad Hosein Noohinejad Mamaghani. Tehran, Iran: Amir Kabir Publishing. [In Persian]

6. Dolatyar, M. & Sgari, T. (2010). Water Policy in the Middle East. Tehran, Iran: International Publishing. [In Persian]

7. Dolatyar, M. (1995). Water Diplomacy in the Middle East, in: The Middle Eastern Environment. St. Malo Press.

8. Duerti, J. (1997).Confront Theories in International Relations.Translated by Alireza Tayyeb & Vahid Bozorgi.Tehran, Iran:Ghognos. [In Persian]

9. Feitelson, E. (2002). Implications of Shifts in the Israeli Water Discourse for Israeli- Palestinian Water Negotiations, Political Geography, 21(44), 163-184.

10. Ghavam, A. (2007). International Relations, Theories & Approaches. Tehran, Iran: SAMT. [In Persian]

11. Gross Stein, Y. (2007) War and Security in the Middle East. Translator Bahrani,M. at Louis Faust (editor) Middle East International Relations, Tehran, Iran: Bureau of Political and Web Studies. [In Persian]

12. Hamidi Nia, Hussein (2011) Political Geography of Israel. Journal of Regional Studies, 42-43(2), 17-42. [In Persian]

13. Jägerskog, A. (2007). Why States Cooperate Over Shared Water: The Water Negotiations in the Jordan River Basin, in the book Water Resources in the Middle East, Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

14. Kaviani Rad, M. (1393). Philosophy of Political Geography. Tehran, Iran: Strategic Studies Research Center. [In Persian]

15. Lonergan S.C. & Brooks D.B. (1995). Watershed: The Role of Fresh Water in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

16. Maleki, M. R. (2000). Israel's Middle East Position.Quarterly Journal of Regional Studies, 4(6), 23-65. [In Persian]

17. Mamori, A. & Kazemi, S. A. (1390). The Role of Israel in the Middle East Water Crisis. Journal of Speech History, 5(12), 121-149. [In Persian]

18. Martin, Lanore J. (2010) New Security Faces in the Middle East. Qadir Nasri Translation. Tehran, Iran: Strategic Studies Institute. [In Persian]

19. Mossalaie Nejad, A. (2008). Examining different aspects of environmental security with the approach of the critical school. Journal of Ecology, 34(46), 139-148. [In Persian]

20. Mousavi, S.H. (2009). The Golan Heights and Security of the Zionist Regime. Strategic Studies Quarterly, .12(2), 151-179. [In Persian]

21. Nazari, M. (1392The Strategy of Zionism in Iraq. Fars News Agancy. [In Persian]

22. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development] (2002). Tehran, Iran: Environmental Protection Agency. [In Persian]

23. Sadeghi, S. (1376). Hydropolytics and Water Crisis; Future Challenges in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Political and Economic Information, (115- 116), 200-208. [In Persian]

24. Schaefer, Donald D.A. (2018). Water, Trump, and Israel’s, National Security.The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies

25. Star, J. (1371). The Water Crisis, Future Conflict in the Middle East. Translated by: A. Tabatabaei, Journal of Political-Economic Information, 56. [In Persian]

26. Tasli, I.(2011). A Critical Look into the Southeastern Anatolia Project, The Ekopotamya Network, Istanbul

27. The World Bank (2009). Water and Climate Change: Understanding the Risks and Making Climate-Smart Investment Decisions

28. Velayati, S. (2004). Geography of the waters. Mashhad, Iran: Academic Jihad. [In Persian]

29. Witfogel, C. (1392). Eastern Autocracy. Translator Mohsen Solati. Tehran, Iran: Nasr-e- Sales. [In Persian]