Hydro-‐political Baseline of the Upper Jordan River - Ibrahim Abd El Al

Recommendations

Info

LOWER JORDAN RIVER ISRAEL Metulla Wazzani Springs Hasbani River Huleh Lake Lake of Tiberias LEBANON Metulla LOWER JORDAN RIVER Wazzani Springs Hasbani Springs Ghajar Liddan River Banias River UPPER JORDAN RIVER Hasbani River Huleh Lake Lake of Tiberias Hasbani Springs Ghajar Hasbaya Liddan Springs Banias Banias Springs Kuneitra a) Pre-1916 Ottoman Empire Liddan River Banias River UPPER JORDAN RIVER Hasbaya Cheba’a Farms Liddan Springs Banias Banias Springs SYRIA Kuneitra e) post 1948 border + 1967 Israeli occupation of Golan FRENCH MANDATE LEBANON Metulla BRITISH MANDATE PALESTINE LOWER JORDAN RIVER ISRAEL LEBANON Metulla LOWER JORDAN RIVER Wazzani Springs Hasbani River Huleh Lake Lake of Tiberias Wazzani Springs Hasbani River Huleh Lake Lake of Tiberias Hasbani Springs Ghajar Liddan River Banias River UPPER JORDAN RIVER Hasbani Springs Ghajar Liddan River Hasbaya Liddan Springs Banias Banias Springs FRENCH MANDATE SYRIA b) 1916 Sykes- Picot border Banias River UPPER JORDAN RIVER Hasbaya Cheba’a Farms Liddan Springs Kuneitra Banias Banias Springs SYRIA Kuneitra f) Maximum Israel occupation border (
Each shift in borders has resulted in (but not been primarily driven by) re-‐allocation and use of the Upper Jordan River flows. The Lebanon-‐Palestine border was the subject of significant (if inadequate) attention by French and British cartographers. Under the secret and hastily-‐ prepared British-‐French Sykes-‐Picot agreement in 1916, the Huleh marshes were to be controlled by the French mandate. The colonial powers agreed under the terms of the 1920 Franco-‐British Convention, however, to retract French Mandate Lebanon’s southern border (FNA 1920), in what became the first significant hydropolitical border shift, as shown in Figure 2.5, and commonly referred to as the ‘Hula Concession’ (see also Schmida (1984). demandée par the G’t anglais” (Border adjustment requested by the English Goverment) par l’accord Sykes-Picot” Sykes-Picot Agreement) “Mtelle” (Metulla) B anias ”Lac de Houlé ” (Hula Marshes) “Koneirtra” (Kuneitra) Figure 2.5 The first significant hydropolitical border shift – the ‘Hula Concession’ (after FNA 1922). The border agreed at the 1916 Sykes-‐Picot accord (in red) was adjusted after the Franco-‐British Convention of 1920 (shown in dashed blue) such that Metullah, the Huleh Marshes, and all of Tiberias (up to the 10m beyond the high-‐water mark, unlike what is shown here) were ceded by the French to British Mandate Palestine. The case for expansion of Palestine at this time was made by the British authorities and Zionist businessmen on the grounds of a) inclusion of the Jewish community in Metullah (labelled ‘Mtelle’ in Figure 2.5), at the northern extent of biblical Israel; b) clear route for completion of the Hejaz (Mecca-‐Basra-‐Haifa) railway, and c) greater water resources – the Hula Marshes – to serve increases in population through expected European Jewish 25
Page 1 and 2: Hydro-‐political Baseline of th
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 5 and 6: 8 THE HYDROPOLITICAL BASELINE 126 8
Page 7 and 8: Tables Table 2.1. Estimates of surf
Page 9 and 10: Preface This study could not have b
Page 11 and 12: control of the flows was assured fo
Page 13 and 14: MILITARY/ POLITICAL EVENTS 1916 192
Page 15 and 16: Springs in 2002, the prominence of
Page 17 and 18: 6, Lebanese narratives in support o
Page 19 and 20: 2. Snapshot of the Upper Jordan 2.1
Page 21 and 22: Wazzani Springs Hasbani River Huleh
Page 23: The religious significance of Bania
Page 27 and 28: The border created by the French-
Page 29 and 30: Hydro-‐hegemony in Upper Jordan
Page 31 and 32: Figure 2.7 Institutional arrangemen
Page 33 and 34: master plans, and continues to take
Page 35 and 36: Water Production Water Allocation T
Page 37 and 38: (Hartman 2008). The north-‐west
Page 39 and 40: Mediterranean Sea Dardana Spring A
Page 41 and 42: and placed just downstream of the s
Page 43 and 44: Hasbani Liddan Banias Figure 3.5 Da
Page 45 and 46: Hasbani Liddan Banias Figure 3.6 An
Page 47 and 48: The aquifer is composed primarily o
Page 49 and 50: 25 km wide. It is the highest mount
Page 51 and 52: Hasbani, and that the Litani cannot
Page 53 and 54: 3.5 Water abstractions 3.5.1 Water
Page 55 and 56: Groundwater abstractions within the
Page 57 and 58: PART B. ANALYSIS 4. Hydropolitical
Page 59 and 60: The Ottoman authorities also made a
Page 61 and 62: • to agree to construction works
Page 63 and 64: Figure 4.3 Hiorth’s suggested pla
Page 65 and 66: Figure 4.4 Israeli Water “Project
Page 67 and 68: The break-‐down of the talks me
Page 69 and 70: The 1967 territorial conquest marke
Page 71 and 72: In any case, the debilitation of th
Page 73 and 74: Considered alongside the significan
Page 75 and 76:
Zeitoun (2007: Fig 4.5) shows how a
Page 77 and 78:
The representatives of the European
Page 79 and 80:
4.5.3 Ghajar “Many people are foc
Page 81 and 82:
5. Wars and Water This section appl
Page 83 and 84:
The very extensive damages to water
Page 85 and 86:
5.4 Water and War in Lebanon during
Page 87 and 88:
Item Area Comments Water Reservoirs
Page 89 and 90:
The total cost of damages to water
Page 91 and 92:
Figure 5.2 Water reservoirs in Leba
Page 93 and 94:
those water pumping stations” (Mu
Page 95:
Assi River, 43 where an estimated 3
Page 98 and 99:
6. Upper Jordan Narratives and Disc
Page 100 and 101:
6.1.2 IWL Narrative: International
Page 102 and 103:
agreement is essential in order tha
Page 104 and 105:
the Jordan and all its tributaries
Page 106 and 107:
High-‐level state interests ris
Page 108 and 109:
either the lingering effects of lon
Page 110 and 111:
7. The Struggle for Control of the
Page 112 and 113:
As such, links between control over
Page 114 and 115:
Figure 7.3 Relative control over su
Page 116 and 117:
MILITARY/ POLITICAL EVENTS 1916 Zio
Page 118 and 119:
een planned since the days of Ibrah
Page 120 and 121:
“Consequently, water disputes mus
Page 122 and 123:
1948 - 1967: no hegemon (control co
Page 124 and 125:
The extensive damages to water infr
Page 126 and 127:
8. The Hydropolitical Baseline The
Page 128 and 129:
8.2 Interests and Power in the Uppe
Page 130 and 131:
Springs are located just inside the
Page 132 and 133:
Water resources and water infrastru
Page 134 and 135:
River flows may come to more closel
Page 136 and 137:
conflicts between the political ent
Page 138 and 139:
Brielmann, Heike (2008) Recharge an
Page 140 and 141:
FNA (1922) Concession du Houle. Fre
Page 142 and 143:
Jarvis, Todd, Mark Giordano, Shammy
Page 144 and 145:
Nembrini, Pier Giorgio (2002a) Kabu
Page 146:
Wolf, Aaron T. (1995) Hydropolitics
show all

Hydro-‐political Baseline of the Upper Jordan River - Ibrahim Abd El Al

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?