Hydrostrategic Decisionmaking and the Arab ... - Yale University

266 MIDDLE EASTERN NATURAL ENVIRONMENTSHeights. As mentioned above, Schwartz and Zohar (1991) advisedIsraeli retention of the Golan Heights west of the Jordan River watershedline in order to guarantee continued control of both waterquantity and quality (see Figure 13). In a 1994 study, Shalev (1994),himself a retired general in the Israeli army, cites five other retiredgenerals on the importance of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan tothe protection of water resources. Even in his small sample, Shalevfinds a range of military opinions, from those who suggest thatIsrael retain a physical presence on the Golan Heights, to those whoadvocate retention of at least the plateau above the Sea of Galilee, tothose (such as former Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur) who argue thatthe water problem can be resolved politically in a peace treaty, andthat the territory is not vital. Shalev concludes that Syria would notrisk a war with Israel for water, especially since a diversion wouldtake years to construct and would constitute a clear casus belli. Itstands to reason, Shalev argues, that countries involved in watersharingagreements would want to maintain them.In the meantime, Schiff (1995), Tarnopolsky (1996), and othershave argued in the popular Israeli and Jewish press that water’sparamount importance may scuttle negotiations over the Golan,while Israeli politicians from the Labor party, including Prime MinisterShimon Peres and his Foreign Minister Ehud Barak, argue thatwhile the land may be negotiable, the water is not (Jerusalem Post,January 6, 1996 and January 27, 1996).In answer to the question posed at thebeginning of this section, “How much ofthe quest for negotiated boundaries hasbeen influenced by the location of waterresources?” the evidence seems tosuggest: not much. This is not to say thatwater has not been an important topic ineach set of negotiations—quite theopposite. The questions of waterallocations and rights have been intricateand have been only partially resolved,and even so with great difficulty.Water and Negotiations—ConclusionsIn answer to the question posed at the beginning of this section,“How much of the quest for negotiated boundaries has been influencedby the location of water resources?” the evidence seems tosuggest: not much. This is not to say that water has not been animportant topic in each set of negotiations—quite the opposite. Thequestions of water allocations and rights have been intricate andhave been only partially resolved, and even so with great difficulty.Nevertheless, with the concluded negotiations between Israel andJordan and the ongoing talks between Israel and the PalestinianAuthority (and despite the quantity of studies identifyinghydrostrategic territory and advising its retention) no territory todate has been retained simply because of the location of water. Solutionsin each case have focused on creative joint management of theresource, rather than insistence on sovereignty.The pattern which does seem to be emerging, however, is thatwater in addition to one or more other concerns, may justify retentionof territory. For example, in the absence of any legal claims,security interests, or settlements, Israel withdrew from territoryBULLETIN 103