The end of the road for Amnesty’s reputation? New report accuses Israel of “denying water to Palestinians”.
Amnesty International has today released yet another blatantly one-sided attack on Israel, this time alleging that the Jewish state is “denying water to Palestinians”. Last week, I alerted readers to the fact that 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.
Postscript: The Mid East media analyst Tom Gross (see link to his website below) has contacted me to say that BBC World Service TV has been running this story at the top of the hour every hour all morning. They’re never ones to miss an opportunity like this, are they?
To read the Amnesty report, click here:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18466
To see Tom Gross’s website, click here:
Tags: Israel
October 27th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Robin, another lucid deconstruction of the prejudices infecting the progressive, humanitarian, anti-Israeli mindset. I hope your attempts to counter this through an organised, co-ordinated front - as mentioned in earlier posts - are bearing fruit.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“Try comparing American water consumption per capita with Mexico’s”
U.S. (1996-8) - 161 gallons per capita per day versus Mexico (2006) - 71 gallons per capita per day (2006).
United States
“Total water use was 161 gallons (608 liter) per capita per day in 1996–1998,”
http://tinyurl.com/4xodnx
Mexico
“Despite scarce resources in many Mexican regions water consumption is at a high level, partly favored by poor payment rates and low tariffs”
“This means that the average domestic use per capita a day [in 2006] was 270 litres [71 gallons]”
http://tinyurl.com/ykpeyv8 (please note: I have corrected a small spelling error in the above extract)
An interesting chart showing the daily water consumption in selected Texas cities:
http://tinyurl.com/yjnajk8
Examples:
Dallas — 244 gallons per capita
San Antonio — 142 gallons per capita
I wonder when Amnesty are going to produce a report on the apartheid regime in Texas? Yes, you would have to be very hard-hearted indeed not to shed a tear or two for the benighted residents of San Antonio.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Joshua:
Amnesty could very well end up denouncing the US as an apartheid state for its treatment of migrant labourers from Central America, but for certain would never apply the same to countries like Saudia Arabia that severely constrain the religious freedoms of non-Muslims.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Robin, Amnesty refused Jonathan Hoffman a response to the allegations. Perhaps they would allow you?
Robin Shepherd says: Ok. I’ll ask them.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Its ironic that in all his time in Brazil, Ben White did not see fit to comment on the poverty and discrimination there. Here’s an example of what its like:
http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog-entries/mick_grimes/santiago2005/1126914120/tpod.html
Brazil is an apartheid state in all but name, but White’s eyes were fixed firmly only on Israel, even from the other side of the world, ignoring the and enjoying his privileged white status in Brazil.
The water thing is being torn to shreds by knowledgeable sources from the Israel Water Authority - Amnesty is about to make an even bigger fool of itself than usual.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1256557968809
October 27th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:
http://tinyurl.com/yhpumpc
Israeli academic wins international water prize
October 27th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
The BBC gave this allegation prominent position on its news site this morning. It covered itself by headlining “report” as though its not the BBC’s allegation.
Does this suprise anyone ?
October 27th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Some interesting details on this subject from NGO Monitor:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_monitor_amnesty_s_water_report_timed_to_support_latest_israel_boycott_campaign
Particularly interesting that Palestinian levels of water consumption are often higher than in surrounding countries.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
So, playing devils advocate here. If the sources of water are on Israeli land, why do they have to share their resources with a group dedicated to their destruction?
Pardon me if I weep crocodile tears for a group of people who are their own worst enemy (Palestinians).
Mailman
October 28th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Mailman
More about the water issue over at HudsonNY that escaped Amnasty’s attention:
October 28, 2009 5:30 AM
http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/10/response-to-amnesty-internationals-report-on-israeli–palestinian-water-issues.php
Response to Amnesty International’s Report on Israeli- Palestinian Water Issues
The Israel-Palestinian water policy is based on an interim agreement between the two parties, particularly on Article 40 of Annex III to the agreement, which relates to the question of water and sewage. According to the agreement, 23.6 million cubic meters of water will be allocated to the Palestinians annually. In actual effect, they have access to twice as much water.
Israel has fulfilled all its obligations under the water agreement regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement, specifically regarding important issues such as illegal drilling (they have drilled over 250 wells without the authorization of the Joint Water Commission) and handling of sewage (The Palestinians are not constructing sewage treatment plants, despite their obligation to do so and the important foreign funding earmarked for this purpose).
Data regarding consumption of fresh natural water clearly shows Israel’s fair treatment of Palestinian requirements:
In 1967, Israel’s per capita consumption of fresh natural water was 508 (m3/person/year). In 2008, it dramatically dropped to 149. The Palestinian figures for the same consumption went from 86 (in 1967) to 105 (in 2008).
Israel has offered to supply Palestinians with desalinated water, but this possibility is systematically rejected due to political motivations.
While Israel has significantly reduced its use of fresh natural water since 1967, consistently closing the gap between Israeli and Palestinian consumption, it remains unclear how Amnesty’s claims of “discriminatory policies” towards Palestinians can sustain the trial of reality. The authors of the report chose to ignore Israeli data, papers and reports, although they contain verifiable facts presented with total transparency. This questionable approach, which consists in systematically disregarding Israeli material while relying exclusively on Palestinian allegations, raises doubts as to the real intentions of the report’s authors and of the organization itself.
A thorough report on the issue of water between Israel and the Palestinians can be consulted on the website of the Israel Water Authority:
http://www.water.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/A111EFEF-3857-41F0-B598-F48119AE9170/0/WaterIssuesBetweenIsraelandthePalestinians.pdf
October 30th, 2009 at 12:38 am
“This questionable approach, which consists in systematically disregarding Israeli material while relying exclusively on Palestinian allegations, raises doubts as to the real intentions of the report’s authors and of the organization itself.”
Well, they relied on Ben White.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:41 am
“Its ironic that in all his time in Brazil, Ben White did not see fit to comment on the poverty and discrimination there.”
He did write one article on street children for the New Statesman. I don’t think he lives in Brazil now.