Hydrostrategic Decisionmaking and the Arab ... - Yale University

268 MIDDLE EASTERN NATURAL ENVIRONMENTSThe watershed was further divided in the 1922 creation ofTransjordan in territory east of the Jordan River, Dead Sea, andWadi Araba/Arava. The Zionists attempted to reinforce their sovereigntyof the headwaters region through settlement activity in thelate 1930s, always within negotiated boundaries.It seems clear that water was uppermost in the minds of plannersand political decisionmakers, particularly among the Zionists, asboundaries were negotiated over the years. However, despite studiesadvocating the need for greater access to water through 1947, officialadherence to sovereignty over such hydrostrategic territory has ceasedeach time negotiations over legal borders have been concluded.During warfare between competing riparians, has territory beenexplicitly targeted, captured, or retained because of its access towater sources? This has been the most elaborately argued questionin the literature relating water resources to Arab-Israeli relations,although it is too rarely investigated in detail. In contrast to thefunctionalists and advocates of a “hydrostrategic imperative,” waterrelatedterritory seems actually to have played almost no role inArab-Israeli warfare. Close examination of strategic planning andmilitary decision making and tactics suggest no evidence at all thatwater was a factor in the hostilities of 1948, 1967, 1978, or 1982. Theonly instance in which territory was sought for access to water was abrief attempt by Israel in 1979 to move the boundary with Lebanonabout a kilometer north to gain access to the Wazzani Springs—anattempt quickly vetoed by the local Lebanese commander.In the course of peace negotiations, has hydrostrategic territorybeen seen as vital for retention by any of the riparians? Here, too,the answer seems to be no, despite a flurry of studies recommendingIsraeli retention of territory to protect its water sources. That is notto say that water has not been a difficult topic for negotiationsbetween Israel and its neighbors—again, quite the opposite, but thedebate has been over rights, allocations, and management, not overterritory. Of territory identified in Israeli studies as being vital to theprotection of Israel’s water resources, none has been retained byIsrael because of the location of water alone. This has been true ofagreements completed as of this writing—the 1994 treaty of peacebetween Israel and Jordan, and the 1993 Declaration of Principlesand the 1995 Interim Agreement between Israel and PalestinianAuthority—where arrangements were made for joint managementand sovereignty concerns were not highlighted.Hydrostrategic territory is being insisted upon, however, inongoing negotiations when at least one other compelling justificationexists. Israel may point to demographic and/or security concernsover some Jewish settlements which were reportedly sited toBULLETIN 103