It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thirsty for war?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The IDF have stated that they are to re-enforce the security zone in southern Lebanon as far north as the Litani river, and have ordered all Lebanese civilians to leave the region. While this may make sense in that a river provides a natural boundary deliniation, Israel's current war would seem to have little to do with Hezbollah and kidnapped soldiers, and more to do with securing scarce water supplies. At present rates, Israel has an estimated water-deficit of 500-600 cubic metres per year, and the southern stretch of the Litani, which would be within the projected 'Lebanese security zone', could supply a projected extra 800million cubic metres per year.

Even before the official formation of the Israeli state, the Litani was identified as an essential water supply for the nation, but despite petitions to the French and British mandate powers governing the region, the extension of Israel's northern borders to include the river valley were declined.

There have since been several attempts to annexe the land of southern Lebanon bordering the Litani river valley, after the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and subsequent occupation and formation of the 'northern security zone', army engineers confiscated all hydrological charts and technical data from the Lebanese Water Authorities to determine the site for a diversion of the waters to supply northern Israel.

In fact, the strategic gains made by Israel against Syria in the '67 war were primarily to gain access to aquifers in the Golan. The same can be said for the denial by the Israeli government of a Palestinian autonomous state in the West Bank..because aquifers under the West Bank supply Israel with 30% of national water supply, and therefore are of great strategic importance and must remain under Israeli control.

As for the current conflict, this is merely a drop in the ocean. Can we expect to see military incursions into Syria from the Golan on some fabricated pretext to secure further water supplies?

Sources:
www.unu.edu...
web.macam.ac.il...




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
That's very interesting.

But what is the pretext in this case? Hezbollah did capture Israeli soldiers.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
The pretext for the re-occupation of southern Lebanon could well be the kidnap of the soldiers by Hez., but if not the soldiers, then it would be for another excuse

However, I think the real motivator for the drive to conflict is impending drought. Israel currently uses 15% more water than it can obtain, and in the last few years since relinquishing the Lebanese 'security zone'. Water-table levels have dropped, Lake Galilee is becoming more saline from over-use as a supply, and the underground aquifers cannot replenish quickly enough, as a direct result of increased demands by agriculture and the steady increase in jewish immigrant population.

Israeli control of the Litani represents a complete solution to current and future water demands, and while initially the security zone would make katyusha attacks by Hez. more difficult, the underlying goal is to resolve a national water-crisis



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Timski, some of us came to the same conclusion earlier also. In this thread:
Israel Set War Plan More Than a Year Ago



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Well, it is definitely a serious issue. So, who knows?

Access to clean water is key to survival and nations do go to go war over resources.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The water resource is clearly not the factor that has started the war.
More so, the water supply would just turn out to be one of the spoils of war, in this case, a very handsome one at that.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
The water resource is clearly not the factor that has started the war.
More so, the water supply would just turn out to be one of the spoils of war, in this case, a very handsome one at that.


True. It sure does help out the PNAC crowd's agenda, though.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Never said it wasnt a profitable spoil of war.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Never said it wasnt a profitable spoil of war.


I do see it more as a spoil of war than a cause.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Never said it wasnt a profitable spoil of war.


It can be if you control enough water to sell to other nations, Turkey has made moves to secure large water sources to become a "water monopoly" in the desert water is much more vital then oil.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I learned the value of water while stationed in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We carried every ounce we used/consumed on our backs. You come home seeing things very differently.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join