Last week Israel agreed an extraordinary arms-for-water deal with Turkey. Whether this goes ahead or not, water lies at the heart of Israel's relationship with its Arab neighbours and the Palestinians - and poses some of the toughest challenges for peace in the Middle East. Chris McGreal reports

Ask Ariel Sharon about the Six Day war and he will tell you that the fighting of that momentous week in 1967 really began more than two years earlier as Israel responded not to Syria's tanks but its bulldozers.

Damascus was constructing a vast canal to divert the waters of two of the Jordan River's main tributaries away from Israel in an attempt to squeeze dry an already parched land. For Israel, the threat to its precarious water supply was as great a challenge to the existence of the fledgling Jewish state as any Arab army. Artillery duels and the Israeli air force brought work to a halt.

"People generally regard June 5 1967 as the day the Six Day war began," Mr Sharon wrote in his autobiography. "That is the official date. But, in reality, it started two-and-a-half years earlier, on the day Israel decided to act against the diversion of the Jordan. While the border disputes between Syria and ourselves were of great significance, the matter of water diversion was a stark issue of life and death."

The threat from Arab armies was buried by Israeli victories and the overwhelming technological weapons superiority it enjoys today, along with a stash of secret atom bombs. But continued competition for scarce water supplies continued to dog the Middle East. Anwar Sadat signed Egypt's peace accord with Israel in 1979 with a warning. "The only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water," he said.

Jordan's King Hussein said much the same 11 years later about his own country's peace treaty with Israel. The former UN secretary general and ex-foreign minister of Egypt, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, forewarned of just such a war.

Last week, Turkey agreed an extraordinary plan to ship millions of tons of water in giant tankers to Israel in a deal linked to hi-tech weapons shipments to Ankara. A few years ago the plan was to pump fresh water between the two countries in an undersea pipe, but the project was deemed prohibitively expensive. The tankers will still cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build and operate and yet provide less than 3% of Israel's rapidly growing needs, which has led the finance minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to rubbish the scheme as unworkable.

Whether or not the deal goes ahead, Israel will continue to lie at the heart of growing competition for limited supplies of water - and disputes about ownership - that underpins the conflict with the Palestinians, afflicts negotiations with Syria and poses some of the hardest challenges to peace in the Middle East.

The region's three major waterways - the Jordan, the Tigris-Euphrates and the Nile - serve a few countries well. Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt do not want for water, although that is sometimes at the expense of their neighbours: Syria remains bitter over Turkey's construction of a dam on the Euphrates that disrupted the river's flow across the border.

Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories are not so fortunate. Israel has the highest per capita consumption of water in the region and uses far more than it produces. Since 1967, it has met much of the demand by drawing it from the occupied territories while restricting Palestinian access, and by clinging to the Golan Heights as much for its crucial source of fresh water as any military strategic advantage from being able to see all the way to Damascus.

"If the world were to work on the basis of rationality, water should never be a cause for war because for the price of a modern war you could probably desalinate an entire sea," says Martin Sherman, a former adviser on intelligence to the Israeli government and the author of a study on water and security. "But rationality has rarely been applied to the causes of war and water certainly could be a cause or an excuse for a future conflict in the Middle East because Israel has to decide whether to rely on Arab altruism to safe guard the most important sources of its water supply as part of any future peace settlement."

Israel relies on three key water sources: the Sea of Galilee and two natural underground aquifers - the "mountain aquifer" in the occupied West Bank and the "coastal aquifer" in Israel. One or two dry years has a profound effect on the aquifers, along with Israel pumping far more water than is provided by replenishment. The Sea of Galilee, which is pumped as far south as the Negev desert, fell to its lowest level in recorded history last summer and came perilously close to exposing the pumps. Winter rains have replenished it to a degree, but the water level still sits precariously close to the "red line" at which the national water authority says the sea's ecological stability will start to erode. However, not many take the red line seriously, given that the authority has lowered it several times over the years so that it is always kept below falling water levels. It is now 2.5m below its original designation.

The coastal aquifer has fallen so low at times that it is in danger of irreversible contamination by salt water drawn in from the Mediterranean sea. As the water table falls, sea water percolates through coastal soil into the fresh water, making it undrinkable and useless for irrigation.

The chairman of the national water company, Uri Sagie, recently warned a conference of Israeli farmers that there is a growing and unbridgeable gap between production and consumption. "The water sources are being depleted without the deficit being restored, and there is no choice except to create additional sources in order to close the gap," he said.

It is not a message the farmers like to hear, but there are some who blame them for Israel's predicament. The Jewish state has an abiding attachment to the kibbutz dwellers who colonised the desert. They provided the foundations for modern-day Israel and shaped the myth of a brave, small people struggling against all odds. But today agriculture consumes two-thirds of Israel's water while contributing to just 2.5% of its gross domestic product. Irrigation, compounded by a growing number of swimming pools, is a leading cause of the gap between production and consumption.

But it is the Palestinians who are paying the price. Under the Oslo peace agreement, Israel retained overall control of water from the West Bank. The Palestinians now regret the deal. "The defect is in the Oslo agreement," says Amjad Aleiwi, a hydrologist at the Palestinian Water Authority. "The fact is we can't even drill a well without approval from Israel, while they pump all the water they like into the settlements."

More than 80% of water from the West Bank goes to Israel. The Palestinians are allot ted just 18% of the water that is extracted from their own land. Palestinian villages and farmers are monitored by meters fitted to pumps and punished for overuse. Jewish settlers are not so constrained, and permitted to use more advanced pumping equipment that means the settlers use 10 times as much water per capita as each Palestinian.

"This has caused us huge problems," says Aleiwi. "Palestinians get less than 60 units a day when the international minimum is 150. The Israeli domestic use alone is 300 to 800 units. It's worse in Gaza. Much of the water is not potable. That's why they have a lot of health problems, a lot of diseases in knees and kidneys. How can it be that Jewish settlersget unlimited amounts of pure water and that just across a fence children have to drink polluted water?"

The Palestinians accuse Israel not only of plundering their water but polluting it. Some Jewish settlements pump raw sewage straight into the streams of neighbouring Palestinian villages, contaminating water once used for drinking, cooking and irrigation. Others pipe waste into the ground, which inevitably feeds into the aquifers. Palestinian villages also dump their sewage into the ground. Aleiwi blames the Israelis for both problems.

"They took this land in 1967 and they con trolled it completely until 1995. During that period they built a lot of settlements but they only built one waste treatment plant for all of us, Jews and Palestinians," he says. "Most of the sewage goes back into the ground. It's the same with pollution from their agriculture. There are very high levels of nitrate and chloride in the aquifers. It's very dangerous to health."

Israel also replenishes the groundwater with treated sewage that some critics say has too much salt and is contaminating the water supply.

Sherman does not deny that there are problems. "It's certainly true that Israel's management of water resources over the past three decades has been anything but flawless. There have been a lot of mistakes made," he says. "In settlements across the green line, treatment of waste water leaves quite a lot to be desired and I think there's quite a lot of truth in the Arab criticisms. As far as it goes for the Arab population, I think there are quite a lot of mitigating circumstances. Israel was not free to establish water treatment plants without being accused of establishing sovereignty."

The situation is most critical in Gaza, where the Palestinian Authority controls water sources. The drilling of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of illegal wells in backyards has greatly reduced the water supply and led to contamination by the sea. The Israelis say it is the result of Palestinian mismanagement, and evidence of why they cannot be trusted with such a crucial resource. The Palestinians see it differently.

"Israel drilled hundreds of wells out around the edge of Gaza, tapping the fresh water before it gets there," says Aleiwi. "I agree the problem was compounded by drilling many more wells since the Israelis left. It's illegal, but people thought that because the Israelis had gone it's their water. That caused the pollution to be severe, but the main reason is the Israelis stopped the fresh water reaching the aquifer."

Compounding the Palestinians' problems is the steel and concrete barrier carving up the West Bank. The Israelis call it the security fence, the Palestinians the apartheid wall. "The wall will cost us 30% of the wells and water in the western area," says Aleiwi. "It's not just a land grab, they are after the water too. If you look at the route of the fence, it is planned to ensure that many of the wells now fall on the Israeli side."

Boutros-Ghali recently told IslamOnline that he believes water is now the principal obstacle to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. "Water lies at the core of the problems in Israel. This is why [the Israelis] are interested in the occupied territories; not for the territory, but for the water within that territory," he said.

Then there are the Golan Heights, which the Syrians are keen to win back, in part to ease some of their own water supply problems. Opponents of a deal with Syria predict that relinquishing control of the Heights could cost Israel about one-third of its fresh water if the flow into the Sea of Galilee becomes contaminated, deliberately or otherwise. They also say that if Syria follows through on plans to build homes for hundreds of thousands of people on the Heights, it could badly pollute the entire sea.

Others see Israel's agreements with Jordan as the model for future agreements with the Palestinians and Syrians. The treaty provides a detailed breakdown for maintaining and sharing water resources, including an agreement by Israel to provide 25 million cubic metres of water to Jordan each year. There have been tensions, particularly when Israel said it was unable to deliver the quota because of poor rainfalls. But Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian hydrologists say that they have worked well together to try and clean up the Jordan river and on planning desalination projects and monitoring pollution.

But Sherman is not alone in arguing that water is reason enough for Israel to continue to cling to the West Bank and Golan Heights. "You really need a giant leap of faith in Arab altruism to believe that they would behave in a manner consistent with Israel's hydrological interests when their behaviour would be diametrically opposed to their hydrological interests. And even if you were to deduct the ingrained long term hostility between the two sides, I really don't see how it is going to work.

"The Palestinians see a great number of refugees returning to the territories with a huge increase in water consumption. The Syrians would have to reach ecological standards in the Golan far more advanced than they have in the middle of Damascus, and all this to protect the water supply of the Zionist entity. This is something worth fighting for."

“The second day after occupying the West Bank in 1967, the Israeli military issued military order No. 92, which would prohibit all water development, drilling, and infrastructure building in the West Bank, unless a permit was obtained from the military ‘water officer’; to date, not a single permit has been issued, for agricultural or domestic use…demonstrating Israel’s iron grip over Palestinian water resources”
-Palestinian Environmental NGO’s Network, 2003

Drowned beneath the successive ceasefires, ill-fated peace accords, and brutal violence that have highlighted more than five decades of Arab-Israeli conflict, runs the true lifeline of the region: water. The issue has surfaced at regular intervals dating back to the Balfour Declaration in 1918 and as recently as the Apartheid Wall being built today. Israel’s predominantly successful attempts at monopolizing water resources have jeopardized the viability of its Arab neighbors. This is taking place with complete disregard to international law. A statistical examination of the history of the State of Israel uncovers some hidden truths which point towards water as the chief motivation of their successive occupations. If these campaigns and the current construction of the Apartheid Wall are allowed to continue, the world will see yet another drought in peace negotiations.

The external borders that define Israel proper did not satisfy original Zionist ambitions. The Balfour Declaration which called for the “establishment in Palestine of a national homeland for the Jewish people” met the aspirations of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in concept, but failed to satisfy their anticipated borders. Following World War I and the subsequent colonization of the Middle East by British Occupation forces, the WZO pressured European leaders to extend the borders of Palestine north into Lebanon to include the Litani River, and east as “to include all sources feeding the Jordan River (including Lebanon’s Hasbani and Syria’s Banias rivers), the eastern shore of Lake Tiberias and all the Yarmouk River tributaries…”.[1] It should be noted that this was proposed nearly three decades before the UN Partition plan of 1947, further suggesting the expansionist objectives of the WZO.

The choice of Palestine as a homeland served two main objectives: one being the obvious strategic significance in the region which allowed the WZO to bring Britain, and the US, on board their venture. The significance of the Israelites in Palestine in the Bible lent further pull. Jewish migrants felt attached to the land historically. Upon arrival into Palestine this feeling was made permanent as the migrants took up the lands of the former Arab population. Jewish philosopher Martin Buber refers to “…miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruit of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed…”.[2] Agriculture served to tie the new residents to the land. As Israel was to be a state exclusively for Jews, and migrants were plenty in the post WWII aftermath, agriculture became a main focus of the future of the state.

In response to the growing demand for water precipitated by the focus on agriculture, Israel began a sequence of strategic occupations. The Golan Heights, labeled a ‘security’ issue by Israel has in fact little to do with land as a security measure. The Stratfor Special Report conducted in 1999 that the Golan offered little strategic importance in times of war stating that the most it could provide would be “some security from modern Syrian artillery” and further concluding it is “…not ideal for mobile defensive operations…”.[3] Water resources however paint a different picture. The same report indicates an estimated 12%, around 1.8 billion cubic meters, of Israel’s water supply is actively being pumped from the Golan Heights per year. To supplement these figures Israeli General Uri Saguy recently commented on discussions with Syria stating water as “the most critical issue” and going on to say “if Israel is satisfied [with water distribution], it will return all territory”.[4]

In 1967 the West Bank and Gaza strip were occupied in addition to the Golan Heights. Although Israel was facing no “imminent crisis of water scarcity” [5] at the time of occupation, the move eventually took on great significance. Worth mentioning in this regard is that since 1967 over 35% of Israel’s water supply has come from those occupied territories.[6] The 1967 war left Israel in control of all sources of water extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.[7] These statistics cast doubt on an already questionable occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1970’s. Of particular concern is the extent with which the occupation was a security measure and the role of Lebanon’s Litani River in the Israeli endeavor.

The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was also highly regarded as a water issue by a number of Israeli and international academics. Access to the Litani River would have offered a boost of 800 million cubic meters per year to Israel, essentially a 50% increase.[8] In addition to quantity, Amery and Kubursi argued that the Litani River could have been “diverted into the Israeli water system” with “relative ease.”[9] Following the 1967 War Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan recommended “provisionally satisfying all frontiers, with the exception of those with Lebanon.”[10] A journal entry by former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett quotes Dayan as suggesting an occupation of southern Lebanon and installment of a Christian regime which “will ally itself with Israel. The territory from the Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel and everything will be all right” Thus, Israel’s occupation of Southern Lebanon shared common ground with the ’67 Territories: occupation under the guise of military necessity.

Although Israel is about one fourth the size of Jordan (20,770 km2 versus 89,213 km2) Israel manages to amass three times the total yearly water consumption of Jordan (1750 MCM versus 555 MCM).[11] As an occupying power and the owner of vast aquatic resources Israel is required under the Geneva Conventions to provide infrastructure maintenance to the residents of the occupied territory. Following the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza however, no new wells were allowed to be drilled for the Palestinian people. In effect all new wells would provide water only for settlements within the West Bank and for Israel proper.[12]The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz published a piece titled “The Settlers are not to Blame” in 1998 in which columnist Amira Hass reported “Of the 601 million cubic meters [of water] produced annually by the three aquifers in the West Bank, 56.6 percent (340 million cm) is earmarked for Israeli citizens, 23.8 percent (143 million cm) for the 170,000 settlers in the West Bank and 19.6 percent (118 million cm) for the 1.2 million Palestinians.”[13] In effect the ultra high standard of living enjoyed by all Israeli citizens and illegal settlers will not be compromised for the majority Palestinian population who “..will not drink enough water, use the bathroom less, not shower for a week or more, do laundry once every two weeks and risk infection and illness.”[14] Palestinians complain “our tap water is polluted with gravel and sand” and Dr. Yousif Abu-Safiy'eh, a Palestinian legislator and head of the Legislative Council Committee on natural resources and energy comments “Insufficient sanitation conditions and the absence of sewage conveyance systems pose serious threats to public health and are the major cause of environmental degradation.”[15] Moreover, Israeli consumption of water for agricultural use is almost 200% higher than the Palestinian allotment.[16] What’s more, it has been observed that Israeli farmers receive water at a subsidized price allowing them to grow some crops that otherwise “would be uneconomical for Israel and would not be grown”.[17] This selfish policy of Israel dates back to 1953. Andrew Cockburn’s Dangerous Liaison states when US President Eisenhower cut off aid to Israel because of its exploitation of Jordan’s water resources. Israel used water from the Sea of Galilee and the lakes above it which were at the time used by Arab countries irrigating their crops. As a result Israel’s Negev desert flourished while Arab land was reduced to desert.[18] This case follows as another violation of international law, that which states “water within one catchment area should not be diverted outside that area –regardless of political boundaries—until all needs of those within the catchment area are satisfied.”[19] In a report by the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine, Shariff Elmusa observes “…relative to income level, Palestinians pay a minimum of 15 times more than Israeli settlers [for water]..”[20] Recent regional and world developments have set an interesting stage for the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The latest American conquest of Iraq has changed the face of Middle Eastern affairs. At once, it has provided the United States with another stronghold in the region, assuming any democratically elected regime in Iraq will be in almost full compliance with the United States government. In a sense, this has decreased, even if slightly, American dependence on Israel as a strategic ally. But the change, as mentioned, is a small one, and American-Israeli relations will remain a tight bond. However, America now has some flexibility to act against the wishes of Israel. This shift, when coupled with the rise of an Anti-American attitude within the neighboring Arab world dictates a force with the potential to change the region for the better. Although America has always had the ability to change the state of affairs in the region, only now is this in their best interest, and as it so happens, that of the entire region. By actively pressuring a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza the United States could take a step towards mending Arab-Western relations which at the time are at a very low point. By the same token, a US brokered peace deal will hinge on Arab recognition of the right of the State of Israel to exist. Effectively, an independent Palestinian state will emerge in all of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel, with full recognition, could begin brokering agreements with its Arab neighbors on the shared distribution of water, to assist their water crisis. But that’s a poetic note, one that Israel seems content to edit before publication.

Israel is aware that a Palestinian State is on the horizon; and with its resurrection the allocation of the lands water sources to its rightful inhabitants, the residents of the new State. As mentioned earlier, around 35% of Israel’s water usage comes from the areas occupied in 1967. A unilateral withdrawal will mean the temporary loss of these sources. Enter Israel’s “Security” Wall. The stated purpose of the Barrier has already failed miserably, the last attack in Israel on October 4th was carried out by a bomber who passed through an already completed section of the wall. The spell of calm can otherwise be credited to the Palestinian respect of the ceasefire. Meanwhile Israel has continued its raids, arrests, and targeted killings, as dozens of civilians have lost their lives.

The wall has already isolated 200 cisterns and 36 underground wells, while threatening an additional 14 which together account for 6.7 MCM of water discharge per year.[21] This statistic comes from the completion of the first phase of the operation which included a stretch of wall 145 kilometers long, only a fraction of the projected 650 km long completed Wall. By weaving around the Green Line the wall will ensure Israel maintains control of the Western Aquifer, which is among the richest water sources in the West Bank. To the east, the Jordan River and its tributaries are also a concern to the Zionist entity. Currently, a second wall is actively being planned which will cut off the West Bank from the Jordan River to the East and effectively leave the fertile area for Israel.

A high percentage of water serving Israel and its illegal settlements is coming out of the Occupied Territories and this provides a motive for that occupation. Now, having lost any access to Lebanon’s Litani River in 1998, and faced with the imminent threat of a Palestinian State, Israel has embarked on the construction of an Apartheid Wall which in its earliest stages alone has ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, stolen 6.7 million cubic meters of water, and threatens the fate of the entire region. A number of international laws are also in violation, including articles of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention[22] as well as internationally accepted stipulations on the legality of diverting water from a catchment before the needs of the resident population are satisfied. It has been said that water is the substance of life; nevertheless, blood is thicker than water, and it is Israel’s responsibility to embrace this concept and stop the construction of their Apartheid Wall in favor of peace.

[1] Casa, Kathryn. The Washington Report The Underlying Problem: Water the Real Reason Behind Israeli Occupations. July 1991, p. 26.

[2] Buber, Martin. 1961 Address. Available from http://www.mideastfacts.com/index_zion2.html

[3] Stratfor Special Report. Water: The Key to Middle East Peace? Novemeber 10th 1999. Available from http://www.mideastfacts.com/water_gol_stratfor.html

[4] Stratfor Special Report

[2] Amery H.A. , Kubursi A.A. The Litani River Basin: The Politics and Economics of Water. Available from http://www.bintjbeil.com/water/litani_river_basin.html

[6] Amery H.A. , Kubursi A.A.

[7] Hass, Amira. Ha-aretz On the Water Front. Wednesday June 21st 2000. Available from http://www.mideastfacts.com/haas_water_062100.html

[8] Moss, Angela Joy. ICE Case Studies. Litani River and Israel-Lebanon. American University, Case #14 Available from http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/ice/litani.htm

[9] Amery H.A. , Kubursi A.A.

[10] Soffer, Annon. The Litani River: Fact and Fiction. vMiddle Eastern Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, October 1994, 963-74. Quoted by Angela Joy Moss. Available from http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/ice/litani.htm

[11] Amery H.A. , Kubursi A.A.

[12] Collins, Frank. Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs Special Report: Israeli Refusal to Yield Control of West Bank Water Forces Deferral of Issue. October/November 1995. pgs 13, 19. Available from http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1095/9510013.htm

[13] Hass, Amira. Ha’aretz The Settlers Are Not to Blame. August 26, 1998. Available from http://www.mideastfacts.com/index_misc.html

[14] Hass, Amira. Ha’aretz On the Water Front

[15] Hadi, Abdul Asya. Palestine Report Gaza Water Crisis Worsening. Vol. 2 No. 49. May 16, 1997. Available from http://desip.igc.org/GazaWater.html

[16] Collins, Frank

[17] Collins, Frank

[18] Cockburn, Andrew ; Cockburn, Leslie. Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the Us-Israeli Covert Relationship HarperTrade, New York New York 1991. p. 131

[19] Moss, Angela Joy. ICE Case Studies

[20] Elmusa, Shariff S. The Water Issue and the Palestinian Israeli Conflict. Information Paper Number 2. (Washington D.C. The Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine) Quoted by Angela Joy Moss. Available from http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/ice/litani.htm

[21] PENGON. STOP The Wall IN Palestine The Impact of the Wall’s First Phase on Water. Turbo Design Ramallah, West Bank 2003. page 52.

[22] Hague Regulations Section II Article 23(g) Section III Articles 46, 50, 52, 55. Fourth Geneva Convention Article 52 and Article 53

Background:

The Israeli-imposed siege and the frequent aggressions targeting medical facilities in Gaza have debilitated the health sector and its capacity to provide proper medical services. This is exacerbated in cases of chronic diseases, which gives rise to a need to leave the Gaza Strip to receive medical treatment in the occupied West Bank, including Jerusalem, or elsewhere. However, Israel imposes a strict and discriminatory permit regime, which has a disproportionate impact on medical patients given their conditions, and it is not unusual for these permits to be significantly delayed or ultimately refused by Israel.

The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) collected questionnaires from 102 women diagnosed with cancer in the Gaza Strip to assess the quality of the treatment, availability of equipment, accessibility, and referral process.

The full report is accessible here.

Conclusion and recommendations:

The 16-year-long Israeli-imposed blockade and closure on Gaza have had detrimental impacts on the health sector in the besieged Strip. Specifically, the siege has compromised the ability of the healthcare sector to deliver proper medical services due to the absence of crucial medication, equipment, and supplies under flimsy security pretexts. Ultimately, frequent aggressions and targeting of health facilities and the Israeli-imposed siege on Gaza compromise the availability, accessibility, and quality of healthcare services available to Palestinians in Gaza.

MIFTAH urges the international community to:

• Put an end to Israel’s impunity and hold it accountable for its persistent crimes, including the crime against humanity of apartheid, through the adoption of effective and concrete measures;

• Exert pressure to lift the blockade on the Gaza Strip and allow for the free movement of people and goods;

• Ensure the urgent implementation of UNSCR 1325 to provide immediate protection for Palestinian women and to put an end to Israel’s impunity;

• Support the UN Special Rapporteur in the oPt, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion, the ICC investigation and the UN Commission of Inquiry.

The summary factsheet is accessible here.

The legislation of the family protection bill is aimed at the protection of the family itself as an institution, and to guarantee its preservation. Palestinian legislators are aware of the importance of this bill, which is why all ministries and official institutions committed to developing its relevant programs, policies and plans, each according to their field of expertise. Their goal is to contribute to the promotion of a culture that combats domestic violence and encourages the response of public policies to this objective, through education, health, legislation and the media. Another objective is to track the bill’s impact and periodically assess it in cooperation with other civil societies. This paper focuses on some of the financial indicators pertaining to this bill.

All family members in Palestine are subjected to violence, including children, minors, women and men. However, married women remain the sector most vulnerable to domestic violence according to a 2019 Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics survey. It said 29.4% of married women had been subjected to at least one type of violence by their husbands as opposed to 13% of men who had been subjected to violence by their wives, by their own confession. A total of 44.7% of individuals who have never been married have been subjected toviolence;7.6% of the elderly and 44.2% of children(12-17yearsold) were the victims of violence at the hands of one of their parents. Although a high percentage of women have been victims of violence from their spouse, a considerable percentage of these women, around 60.3% preferred to stay silent about the assault. Only a small percentage of women asked for help through official avenues; 2.9% went to a defence lawyer to file a lawsuit against their husbands, 1.3% went to the police or a family protection unit and 1.4% went to the centres for mental, social and legal aid.

Financial indicators for the Family Protection Bill

The table above shows that the estimated and main additional cost of the Ministry of Social Development to be around ILS4 million a year, considering that the other parties (police, prosecution and courts) are currently carrying out their roles without fully allocating specialized departments for protection from violence. However, if these parties do allot specialized departments for protection from violence, overall costs will reach approximately ILS16.2 million. Nonetheless, even if this cost is incurred, it still only comprises a small part of public expenditures, approximately 0.1%. Overall public expenditures for 2022 amount to approximately ILS16.2 billion, which means the cost of passing this bill and implementing its provisions will not constitute financial burden on the general budget and will not be an obstacle to ratifying the law by decree.

Furthermore, it should be noted that while it is imperative to calculate some of the costs resulting from violence against women, the reaerate the high costs as well. The secret social costs, which impact society as a whole. Data from the Ministry of Social Development showed (see graph), that violence exercised against women has prompted around 60% of them to flee their homes. Also, 18% of them attempted suicide in addition to suffering from mental and physical illnesses, unwanted pregnancies or others. Calculating expenses incurred from violence is not an easy process and there are no national data or figures that can measure the impact violence has on the state’s general budget due to the prevalent mentality towards violence as an issue associated only with women. This is especially true when the conversation is about the indirect and intangible effects of violence, including:

Violations of human rights; negative social, economic and political impacts; working women who get sick and need to take sick leave; lack of focus and productivity; impact of violence on children and academic failure; the rise in the percentage of school dropouts among children; the rise in long-term unemployment rates; the percentage of homeless children who become a burden on society; government expenditures for medical treatment; safehouses; therapy; monitoring cases of violence against women; individual expenses for following up on legal cases and lawyer fees; loss of income because of repeated absence from work or inefficacy; social expenses resulting from the breakup of the family; expenses of training individuals on how to deal with cases of violence; expenses for issuing laws and legislation on the protection of women from violence.

Confirmation of the above is that the UN believes the economic, social and health costs of violence against women are, to a large extent, undocumented and unrecognized. However, these remain colossal, according to researchers, specialists and defenders of women’s rights.

To view the full factsheet as PDF

Background:

The illegal Israeli settlement project, including settler-only bypass roads, military checkpoints, and the annexation wall, continues to expand and steal more Palestinian land and resources. As of today, the number of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including Jerusalem, is close to 300, with around 750,000 Jewish settlers residing in them.

Israeli state-sanctioned settler terrorism against Palestinian civilians and property is prevalent and has been on the rise in recent years. Violence takes the form of psychological, physical, and verbal violence, including beating, throwing stones or sharp tools, intimidation, shooting, verbal assaults, and assaults on agricultural lands, cars, and homes. Such attacks are committed in the presence of Israeli occupation forces who often join them.

The high frequency of these forms of violence and their persistence give rise to psychological, physical, and material harm. Palestinian survivors of settler terrorism seldom press charges and file complaints against Israeli settlers given the complicity of the Israeli law enforcement system.

The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) and the Women’s Center for Legal and Counseling (WCLAC) collected questionnaires from 229 Palestinian women covering settler violence in the occupied West Bank governorates of Al-Khalil/Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem.

MIFTAH calls on the international community to:

Put an end to Israel’s impunity and hold it accountable for its persistent crimes, including the crime against humanity of apartheid, through the adoption of effective and concrete measures;

Stop all relations and trade with illegal Israeli settlements including international companies that profit from them;

Criminalize and blacklist Israeli settler groups that engage in terrorist activities and hold those with dual citizenship accountable in their respective states;

Ensure the urgent implementation of UNSCR 1325 to provide immediate protection for Palestinian women and to put an end to Israel’s impunity;

Support the UN Special Rapporteur in the oPt, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion, the ICC investigation and the UN Commission of Inquiry.

• The summary factsheet is accessible here.

• The full report is accessible here.