Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

Israel

On the Importance of Hebrew

‍‍ד תמוז תשסט - Jun 26th, 2009
by LB.
10 comments

One of the most important steps in pre-statehood Zionism was the revival of the Hebrew language. In 2,000 years of exile the Jewish people has developed many languages of its own, but they do not serve an overarching national purpose. Yiddish and Ladino have an important cultural and historical place, but do not unify us as a nation. Only Hebrew has done that.

Bible study and Hebrew go hand in hand. Forty years ago the very idea of “translating” the Bible into modern Hebrew would have been unthinkable. Tanakh was once widely studied, as an important Jewish text, and the Hebrew language flourished.

Today, however, that has all gone by the wayside. A declaration that “we are all Pinchas” does not cause an uproar, because most simply do not understand the implication. Equality and mediocrity have taken the place of excellence. Dumbing down of primary education for the sake of a lowest common denominator is taking a serious toll on Israeli students. The most basic of grammar mistakes are extremely common. In fact, speaking proper Hebrew in Israel, of all places, is likely to elicit bemused looks.

This is not just an Israeli problem, but a global Jewish problem. One of the biggest failings of the American Jewish community is the refusal to incorporate effective Hebrew language instruction into the Jewish educational system. Even the average Orthodox Day School graduate can barely get by in Israel on Hebrew alone. Are they afraid that a stronger connection with Israel and Israelis will lead more to make aliyah, further weakening the American Jewish community?

Setting aside the questionable validity of Jewish life outside of Israel, Judaism without Hebrew is an incomplete entity. For thousands of years Jewish study was reliant on Hebrew. However, a break with that past occurred in the mid-19th century. The religious leadership of the diaspora no longer relies on Hebrew. What sort of Jewish identity does one have without a basis in Hebrew? How can a community rely on Rabbis who are not truly versed in the language of the sources?

If Jewish continuity is a real goal then effective Hebrew education is necessary. Halting the detorioration of the language is imperative for the continued existence, and thriving, of the Jewish people. Proper Hebrew must not be preserved in an encyclopedia, but be the common language of Jews everywhere. The loss of Hebrew and the inability to read primary Jewish sources will leave us with only a watered down cultural heritage, not a national identity.

The OU and Aliyah

‍‍ב תמוז תשסט - Jun 24th, 2009
by LB.
10 comments

A Jewish community fair was held in New York recently, in order to “to lure Orthodox Jews from New York City to towns and other cities where emerging Orthodox communities are eager to reinforce their numbers.”

Sponsored by the Orthodox Union (OU), this fair is an attempt to bolster “emerging Orthodox communities.” Many small Orthodox Jewish communities around the U.S. want to attract new members. But Jews should not be moving to more small Jewish communities in the U.S. If these communities are having a hard time staying alive, the relocation of Jews from those places should be addressed, not vice versa.

How can the observant Jewish leadership justify an active effort to expand Jewish life outside of Israel? Is life in the diaspora a goal of the OU?

Israel is central to Jewish life, and should be treated as such by the leaders of the observant Jewish community. Even if mass aliyah is not around the corner, the further entrenchment of life in the diaspora should not be the alternative.

There are “emerging communities” in Israel, in the Negev and in the Galil. Sponsoring a jobs and relocation fair for those communities would be far more in line with the commandment to settle the land of Israel.

Leave No Man Behind?

‍‍ל סיון תשסט - Jun 22nd, 2009
by LB.
10 comments

Yesterday marked three years (according to the Jewish calendar, this Thursday will be the Gregorian date) since Gilad Schalit was abducted at Kerem Shalom. Three years of talks, of attempts at negotiating his release – but he is still absent. Schalit, however, is not the only Israeli soldier to be left behind.

  • October 10, 1973 – Ze’ev Rotshik went missing, while in search of his unit during the Yom Kippur War.
  • June 12, 1982 – the battle at Sultan Yaqub resulted in three MIAs – Zecharia Baumel, Yehuda Katz, and Tzvi Feldman.
  • October 16, 1986 – an Israeli F-4 Phantom II suffered damage in Lebanese skies. Two crew members were able to eject to safety, but the navigator, Ron Arad, went missing.
  • August 17, 1997 – Guy Hever mysteriously disappeard from his base in the Golan Heights, and has never been heard from since.
  • May 24, 2005 – Majdi Halabi mysteriously disappeard, while on his way from home back to his base, and has never been heard from since.
  • October 1, 2000 – Jospeh’s Tomb in Nablus was attacked, and Border Patrol Officer Madhat Yusuf was shot in the neck. No rescue mission was sent to save him, and he died due to loss of blood.
  • October 7, 2000 – Benny Avraham, Omar Sawaid, and Avi Avitan were kidnapped in a cross-border raid by Hezbollah. In early 2004 their bodies were returned to Israel in a questionable prisoner exchange deal.
  • June 25, 2006 – Gilad Schalit was taken hostage in an attack on an IDF post.
  • July 12, 2006 – Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were captured in a cross-border raid by Hezbollah, leading to the Second Lebanon War. Their bodies were eventually returned in an even more questionable prisoner exchange deal.

Israel has a declared policy of leaving no man behind, of caring for its soldiers. However, there are too many missing soldiers whose fate is still unknown. And the last few times it has tried to bring any kidnapped soldiers home through negotiations, it has paid too dear of a price, and learned, all too late, that it was sold a bill of goods.

The last real attempt at rescuing a captive IDF soldier was in 1994. On October 9 of that year Nachshon Waxman was kidnapped from an intersection by Yehud, and an operation was undertaken for his release. The rescue mission was unsuccessful, leaving both Waxman and the mission commander dead.

Ever since there has been a fear of launching, admittedly dangerous, rescue missions for the release of Israeli captives. Soldiers risk their lives for their country. That is a given – it is the very nature of a soldier. It does not mean that avoiding risk is an acceptable excuse for the abandonment of Israelis behind enemy lines. Nor does it mean that the release of murderers in exchange for dead bodies is an acceptable attempt at bringing the soldiers home. It only strengthens the enemy’s resolve.

While no Prime Minister would dare admit this in public, this fear seems to be grounded in politics, than stemming from a concern for soldiers’ lives. A failed mission would cost the government a significant amount of political capital, but that does not mean that they should not try. These pathetic excuses must be brushed aside, and the government must begin fulfilling its duty – safeguarding the people of Israel.

Even unsuccessful rescue attempts are better than the current situation, in which the kidnapping of a soldier can bring a whole country to its knees. In any case, Israel has executed successful operations in the past, leading to the safe return home of captives. Although the abducted were not soldiers, arguably the most famous of these was in Entebbe, Uganda. Another well-known operation was the rescure Sabena Flight 572, in which two future Prime Ministers participated – Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu.

Today, Netanyahu is the Prime Minister, and Barak is the Minister of Defense. Why have the years gone by with nary an attempt at rescuing the MIAs. Where is today’s Entebbe? Where is today’s Sabena?

J Street Dislikes Israelis’ Opinions

‍‍כט סיון תשסט - Jun 20th, 2009
by LB.
4 comments

A recent poll found that 56% of Israelis support continued construction over the green line. If this finding was not enough evidence that Israeli public opinion stands in opposition to Obama’s vision for the Middle East, another poll shows that only 6% of Israelis view his administration as pro-Israel. Apart from the initial question (who are these 6%??), the impression these polls give is that by pushing its view on Israel, the White House is once again undermining Israel’s sovereignty.

In comes J Street. Using its position as a group that allegedly represents American Jews, the organization characterized the first poll as “politically motivated and distorted.” From their comfortable armchairs in the West, the so-called “pro-Israel” lobby decided the results are “a good example of the half-truths and lies… injected into the debate.” J Street did not carry out any statistical analysis that found fault with results. They just don’t like the results.

Instead, they point to an older poll, which included the possibility of sanctions, to show that there is support for “acquiescence by Prime Minister Netanyahu to U.S. demands.” Setting aside the worrying implication that Israeli capitulation to the U.S. would a positive development, J Street has no say in the matter.

I strongly disagree with J Street. However, regardless of their views on Israel and the region, J Street’s self-proclaimed position as “pro-Israel,” as well as representative of the American Jewish community does not grant it a right to influence Israeli policy. They are merely observers to “the debate.” As I’ve said before, American Jews can easily make their opinion matter, by leaving comfortable American suburbia and joining the forefront of modern Jewish life – in Israel. Until then, their words are little more than a waste of breath.

Disengage

‍‍כו סיון תשסט - Jun 18th, 2009
by LB.
4 comments

In 2005, an event widely known as “The Disengagement” transpired. The follies of this operation are well known, and have been discussed in depth elsewhere.

The Hebrew word for the plan is התנתקות – separation, disconnection. Yet, in spite of two protracted military operations, and thousands of still homeless Israelis that were the result of this horrendous error, Israel is still very much connected to that tiny piece of land. There was no “disengagement,” only withdrawal of residents and permanent military facilities.

The world over has accused Israel of collective punishing Gazans by blockading the territory and closing the crossings. In essence, a siege. If only that were true – that would actually mean Israel had disengaged, and Gaza would deal with with the world through its Egyptian border. Instead, the world is calling for Israel to remain engaged with Gaza.  As analyst Guy Bechor wrote four years ago:

this disengagement is for the sa[k]e of engagement: “crossings” will be opened between Israel and Gaza that will give passage for workers into Israel, the electricity and water companies have already announced that they will continue to provide Gaza and northern Samaria with services as usual even after disengagement.

There is no disengagement, but rather intensive engagement, and not on Israel’s terms. In the same piece from August 2005, Bechor hits the nail on the head: “they control the territory and also continue to milk Israel. In contrast, in its folly, Israel will both lose its settlements in Gaza and also continue to provide for the Palestinians there.”

Israel must decide. This messy, ill-defined situation is only playing into the hands of her enemies. The first option is to return to Gaza, which is not likely to happen anytime soon, nor am I convinced that it is a wise policy decision. The second is to disconnect completely. By truly disengaging Israel will finally shed all responsibility for the “humanitarian crisis” that has been at Gaza’s doorstep for years. No more gas, food, medicine, water, electricity, or money – remove all pretense and “let them fend for themselves or with their great Arab sister Egypt.”

Status Quo

‍‍יז סיון תשסט - Jun 8th, 2009
by LB.
2 comments

In today’s world standing still is not considered good. Movement and change (and don’t forget hope) are demanded of leaders. Nevertheless, barring any earth shattering event, maintaining the status quo in Israel is the most desirable option currently available.

There are a number of alternatives, the most widely repeated of which is the “two state solution.” This “solution,”   supporters of which claim it bring peace to the region, advocates for a Jewish state roughly within the 1949 armistice borders, and an Arab state in the rest of the land between the river and the sea. Setting aside the issue of the right to sovereignty over the land, very little in their actions says the Arabs even want a state of their own.

Israel has a lot of experience with withdrawing from land over the past couple of decades. Egypt, arguably the most successful example, is lead by a president who refuses to visit Israel, is in constant violation of the treaty between the two states, and is in an arms race – but against whom? Yet, one could argue the Camp David treaty from 1978 was successful, and largely beneficial to Israel. After all, Israel has not fought a war against Egypt in three and a half decades. Further, Egypt was already an established state in 1978, and Israel’s relationship with the P.A. is very different.

The “two state solution” assumes a peace treaty between Israel and what would be Palestine. Such an agreement, of course, would need to be respected. However, the short history of the P.A. is a lesson in how to boost one’s international reputation while violating obligatory agreements. There is no need to elaborate Arafat’s murderous riots (aka “The Second Intifada“) after Ehud Barak’s refusal to actively eliminate Israel. Yet war in the guise of “the peace process” did not begin in 2000. As far back as 1996, a time period many Israelis would characterize as euphoric, the very guns supplied to the P.A. by Israel were used to murder Israelis.

There is no reason to think times have changed. After winning 4-5 years of difficult fighting, terrorist attacks against Israel have become less frequent. This is not for lack of trying. Hamas’s electoral victory in 2006, as wonderful as democracy may be, shows that a deal is as far as it has ever been. In other words, not only is such an agreement unlikely to garner the requisite popular support, it would have a very short life, after which Israel would be left with an enemy/terrorist state in its midst, of its own creation no less.

Another popular plan is unilateral withdrawal, the policy that was pursued by Ariel Sharon in his “disengagement plan,” followed by Ehud Olmert’s “realignment,” the latter of which abandoned due to Olmert’s limited political capital after the war in Lebanon. In recent years Israel has ceded land under fire (in contrast to Sinai) in a number of instances, and has paid dearly for it each time. The experiences in Lebanon and Gaza, not to mention the various pockets of “Area A” have shown anyone with eyes in his head that when Israel cedes territory, whether unilaterally or as a result of an agreement, it shall be repaid with fire.

If neither unilateral nor bilateral withdrawals are feasible – what is?

If Arabs left the area between the river and sea clearly the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” would be a non-issue. The question is, can this be accomplished? I would like to reiterate that I am not examining what is right or wrong from a moral standpoint. I am looking at the strategic aspects of these plans alone.

Mass expulsion of Arabs, and the Rehavam Ze’evi plan are two such approaches, yet both are unfeasible. There is a difference between the two. The former is self-explanatory. Ze’evi’s, on the other hand, advocated “making the lives of Palestinians so miserable they would relocate, by use of military force during wartime, or through an agreement with Arab nations.” Even if we set aside the issue of American aid and the strings attached to it, Israel, like nearly every other country on the globe, is not completely independent. Both of these tactics will undoubtedly bring about international opprobrium, and possibly sanctions, maybe even regional war. These are not risks to be taken lightly, and will likely stem any initiative drawn up along these lines, not to mention that no foreseeable Israeli government would dream of adopting such a policy.

Ze’evi has also suggested paying Arabs to emigrate. While this will not carry with it quite the same level of international criticism of mass deportations (which would be, in effect, population exchanges), this plan is unlikely to get off the ground, as well. Even though the price of oil is not as stable as OPEC would like it to be, money would probably start flowing out of Saudi and  Iranian coffers in order to maintain the “refugee problem,” thereby keeping the focus off of their own corrupt regimes. Many want to leave anyway, but regional pressure, and the offsetting monetary offers would render Israeli financial incentives moot.

Furthermore, international pressure would be intense. The world has been wed to the “two state solution” for a long time, and any action that would undermine this vision would not be taken kindly. The UN, for example, would be extremely unhappy. The UN has a vested interest in maintaining the conflict, since ending it would mean the dismantling of an entire UN agency.

Even before 2005, Jordan expressed opposition to a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. Considering Jordan’s inherent instability, this is understandable. The last thing the Hashemites want is a coup d’état on their hands. One creative idea, that has recently been reintroduced by Benny Morris, is a regional federation. Such an arrangement is not clearly defined, and the variations are nearly endless. The most significant impediment to such an arrangement, however, is Arab opposition. While King Abdullah might be in favor of an agreement that could lay to rest its fears of an uprising, the success of a federation is heavily reliant on popular support. Since terrorist activity is still very much alive, and has a considerable amount of popular support, it is hard to believe that the Arab residents of the region – on either side of the river – would acquiesce to such a deal. This settlement (or category of settlements, as seen in the JCPA paper) would mean that Jews and Arabs would be living in closer proximity than the framework of any the other “solutions” suggest. The societies would be much more intertwined, which is currently not something either side wants. Without widespread popular support this plan is dead on the table.

There are moral issues to be considered, as well. Although I do not delve into these here, I would like to point out that I do not see how outright mass deportations, or actively making people’s miserable are defensible from a moral standpoint. This is especially true considering the probable inefficacy of such actions, as outlined above.

New plans are constantly being floated, and someone more creative than I might come up with a way to bring peace and quiet to the region. For the time being, however, the The Middle East is nowhere near peace. The way US foreign policy is being handled these days, primarily with regards to the de facto acceptance of a nuclear-capable Iran,the possibility of a major regional war is growing by the day. Major wars mean widespread population shifts. Until a significant shift occurs in Middle Eastern attitude no “solution” is possible, two-state or otherwise. Taking action that has only proven to add instability, cause strife, and cost lives is a bad idea. For now, staying the course is the best course of action.

Bad News Rahm

‍‍יא סיון תשסט - Jun 2nd, 2009
by LB.
4 comments

Rahm Emanuel has been serious trouble from the start. Although adored by his hometown Jewish community, and of strongly Zionist lineage, he seems to be working overtime to dispell any potential rumors of dual loyalty.

As Obama’s right-hand man, the White House Chief of Staff is arguably the second most powerful in America. It is no secret that the U.S. enjoys an enormous amount of power in Israel, for which it continues to pay in the form of large annual bribes.

It is also no secret that Emanuel dislikes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and would prefer to deal with a left-wing government in Israel. Rumors over personal disagreements between the two have been surfacing for some time, leading some to question whether Obama would even Netanyahu if the Israeli premier visited Washington (that specific rumor was dispelled, when they actually did meet). On the other hand, today, Obama surprised Defense Minister, and Labor Party chairman, Ehud Barak, at a meeting with National Security Advisor Jim Jones.

Just last month Emanuel tried to push his way further into Israeli affairs by promoting a link between Iranian threat and the “Palestinian issue” saying movement on Iran “depended on the ability to make progress on the Palestinian front.” The picture becomes clearer when one taking into consideration the American administration’s anger at Avigdor Lieberman’s statement that Israel is not obligated to follow a non-agreement, all the while declining to even state its position on a binding commitment to Israel.

Meddling in internal affairs on any level is bad enough, but there are now rumors of deliberate intransigence on the part of Rahm Emanuel, with the intent of preventing cooperation between Obama and Netanyahu. If this is indeed intended to cause Netanyahu’s government to fail, then Emanuel is not only representing a White House whose attitude towards Israel is questionable, but a clearly negative influence in his own right.

To paraphrase Lord Palmerston, states do not have friends, but only interests. It appears the United States is behaving in light of its interests, without considering any so-called “friends.” Israel, on the other hand, seems to still be operating under the misconception that is such a thing as a U.S.-Israel friendship.

Every Hebrew Mother

‍‍כט טבת תרס - Jun 1st, 2009
by LB.
No comments yet

“.תדע כל אם עבריה שהפקידה את גורל בניה בידי המפקדים הראויים לכך”

“Every Hebrew mother shall know that she has placed her sons‘ fate in the hands of the commanders worthy of it.”

If there is one line, more than any other, that represents what the IDF should be, this oft-quoted one by David Ben-Gurion is it. One of the biggest concerns parents have when their kids are drafted, by law, is who will be responsible for them. However, that is but the last line – the entire quote is a rather pithy description of what a commander should be:

It is not enough that the commander know his job. He must love man, the life of his subordinate must be dear to him, and the soldier sent to him must be dear to him, so that he shall love him. Only such a commander will find among his subordinates the total devotion that will lead them where-ever he may send them. If the commanders arouse trust, allegiance, and love in their soldiers – then every Hebrew mother shall know that she has placed he son’s fate in the hands of commanders worthy of it.

With more and more teenagers dodging the draft, it is more important than ever not to make soldiers feel like they are no more than mere pawns. This is not to say that the army should be anything but a strict hierarchy, whose needs must always come before the individual conscript’s wishes. However, more should be done to increase motivation among Israeli youth, and come as close as possible to truly universal service.

Moreover, when Jews do make aliyah and proudly serve their country, while their families are halfway around the world, they should not be used as propoganda on the one hand, and stabbed in the back as soon as the press is gone. Unfortunately, as reported in Maariv (Hebrew), that is precisely what happened over this past weekend.

Two brothers, new immigrants from the U.S., who were portrayed as model soldiers for their conduct during Operation Cast Lead, were fortunate enough to have their father come visit them recently. One of the two, however, had an unfortunate experience. Although he was granted a few days of leave to see their cancer-stricken father, he asked to spend an additional few days with his father over Shavuot (I am assuming he would make up his duties over another weekend). When this request, too, was denied, he asked to be able to say goodbye to his father at the airport before his Saturday night flight. Again, his request was denied.

Shavuot commemorates the Jewish people receiving the Torah. This is the same Torah that commands to “love your neighbor as yourself.” The same Torah that Hillel the Elder summarized: “What is hateful to you – do not do unto others.” Although full members of the Jewish people, these brothers are new to the modern State of Israel. And on Shavuot we read the book of Ruth. A major theme in the book of Ruth is acceptance, and welcoming of other. It seems these commanders could not have chosen a more poignant time to make such an unfortunate decision.

A father placed the fate of three of his sons (one was honorably discharged recently) in the hands of Israeli commanders, commanders who were not worthy of it. There are many excellent, worthy commanders in the IDF. Men and women whom it would be an honor to follow. It is evident, however, that the IDF has also been blessed with a number of commanders that are very much unworthy.

No Right

‍‍ט אייר תשסט - May 31st, 2009
by LB.
3 comments

One perennial issue of discussion is how much, if any, influence diaspora Jews should have over the direction Israeli policy should take. One argument in favor of international Jewish involvement was presented to me during the matzav (aka “The Second Intifada“). Then, as now, antisemitism seemed to increase as Israel stepped up military activity. The speaker argued that since Israel’s actions affected Jews everywhere, implying this impact was primarily negative manner, Jews everywhere should be able to influence the policy of the Jewish state.

The basic Israeli argument is very simple. We give our best years, put our lives on the line, bury our children. In the diaspora college and a job follow high school,you walk into restaurants and malls carefree, and war is just something on CNN, ‘and you want to tell us what to do?’ Israelis are physically there, reap the benefits and suffer the direct consequences of our sovereignty. To the rest of the Jewish world they say, you’re very important, and your influence would be more than welcome. But you cannot do so from the comfort of your western armchair. Put more than just your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

As Yoram Hazony says, Israel, like any other state has a purpose. “[Israel's] purpose is to be what Theodor Herzl called ‘the guardian of the Jews.’” One of Israel’s purposes is to serve as a shelter, provide safety and security for Jews. Not only in Israel, though, Jews everywhere. Just as the U.S. has a responsibility (albeit limited) to Americans abroad, Israel is responsible for Jews. What is that responsibility? If a synagogue in the Bronx is attacked, should the Israeli cabinet dispatch IDF soldiers to ward off the attackers?

Yes, Israel does have a basic responsibility for Jews around the world. The rescue mission in Entebbe and the capture and trial of Eichmann are two such examples. Yet, the founders of modern Zionism did not envision such a large Jewish diaspora. Jewish communities abroad are not to be nurtured, they are to be encouraged to come home. At its core, Zionism is the belief that all Jews must move to Israel. That is why the Jewish Agency was rightly angry at the UJC’s attempt to move Jews from Yemen to the U.S.

Jewish identity and Israel are intertwined. One and the same, some may say. However, this identity does not bestow upon all Jews an automatic right to affect Israeli policies. Last month, I heard A.B. Yehoshua declare the Jewish community in the U.S. has such rights. But the basic Israeli argument is correct. Zionism does not recognize this automatic right. It is a potential right, that can be easily realized. Demanding such a right, claiming authority to influence the affairs of the Jewish state from the comforts (or discomforts) of the West smacks of hypocrisy.

Freedom of speech is an entirely different matter. American Jews can lobby their country regarding Israel, promoting their views as they see fit. They are but Americans in this, and no more. When, however, one claims to represent American Jews, implying legitimacy is drawn from this fact, the line has been crossed. An American Jew can meddle in the affairs of Israel no more than an Israeli of German descent can tell Germany what to do.

Diaspora Jews are important, and their existence must be taken into consideration. Jews everywhere are targets of antisemitism, and may bear some of the brunt of Israeli actions, in the form of anger against them. Having a vested interest does not, however,  lead to any real stake in Israel. Remaining in the diaspora is an active choice to stay away from Israel. Again, a stake in Israel can be realized in a heartbeat, by moving and being an active part of the Jewish people. Anything less is backseat driving.

Existential Threats – Water

‍‍ו סיון תשסט - May 28th, 2009
by LB.
1 comment

The holiday of Shavuot begins tonight, celebrating receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. Shavuot is commonly celebrated by eating dairy products. Cheesecake, ice cream, and a variety of cheeses replace the meat and poultry dishes that dominate most Jewish holiday meals. In Israel, a relatively little-known allegorization of the Torah to water has turned Shavuot into an annual festival of water fights. This utter waste of water, fun for some, scary for many others (in some places, similar to a colorless Holi), contributes one of the most dangerous threats to Israel’s existence.

I’ve already expanded on Michael Oren’s list of seven existential threats to Israel. While he did briefly touch upon the issue when I saw him speak a few weeks ago, he did not mention Israel’s limited supply of water in his latest article in Commentary.

This crisis has been a long time in the making. The Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), Israel’s primary source of potable water, has been dwindling for decades, and an alternative source of water is still at large. Unfortunately, the Levant was not blessed with an abundance of water sources. Over the past decade, a series of droughts, interspersed with relatively small amounts of rainfall, have only made the matter worse.

Israel is a leader in water desalination technology, yet in typical Israeli fashion, water is in extremely short supply. Only over the past few years has Israel started availing itself of this technology in any significant manner.

Wars have been started over oil, land, religion, and countless other commodities and ideologies. Although a water war has not yet been fought in the modern Middle East, issues relating to the Jordan River’s tributaries did contribute to the unrest leading up to the events of June 1967. Action must taken now, or else a war will be fought over what little potable water there will be to keep the region alive.

Seawater is a non-perishable resource, and the Mediterranean Sea is not likely to disappear anytime soon. Desalination efforts need to be stepped up. Budgetary concerns, and even fights, are a constant in Israel. One thing people should be able to agree upon easily is the importance of solving at least one, not so insurmountable, problem. After that people can throw gallons of water at each other, without worrying about the salinization of the Kinneret.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →