Water, water, not quite everywhere...

[Kim Whitmyre]

Excerpts from papers about hydropolitics in the Mid East
(The destruction of Lebanon is all about the water):

Water and the Arab-Israeli conflict
http://www.d-n-i.net/al_aqsa_intifada/collins_water.htm

[Extracted from a paper prepared by the MEDEA Institute and delivered by Gerard COLLINS, Former Foreign Minister of Ireland, Member of the Dail Eireann and the European Parliament, before the Diplomatic Institute of Oman on 14 October 1997.]
http://www.medea.be/en/index247.htm,

The Golan Heights, overlooking both the Jordan and Yarmuk, are a strategic region overlooking the Damascus plain eastwards. Israel's main interest there, however is the source of water it provides as 35% of the water consumed in Israel comes from the rivers bordering the Heights. Minister Yigal Allon in his book "Israel, the Struggle for Hope" wrote in 1970 that "the global strategic needs of Israel require the control of the Golan Heights as we have to defend our main water sources." First, seizure of the area by Israel blocked Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian efforts to mobilize the headwaters of the Jordan River. Israel's control of the Golan Heights is key to preventing any new efforts by these upstream states to use the water. Second, occupation of the Golan Heights was an initial step toward Israel's assault on the Litani River, securing the eastern approaches to the proposed diversion works.

The Litani, located entirely within Lebanon, derives its hydro-political importance from the fact that it runs within easy tunneling distance to the present Israeli-Lebanese border. It runs actually less than 10 kilometers from the Israeli controlled upper reaches of the Jordan. Israel had hoped to connect the Litani with the Jordan, thus enabling it to pump those waters into Israel proper. The plan to seize the Litani has a long history. It had been articulated for the first time in the 1920s by one of the Zionist organisations but the objective became more serious following the 1967 war, as Israel wanted more water than had been garnered from the war. The timing for the capture of the Litani in 1978 was logical: if South Lebanon were secured at the time, the waters of the Litani would be available for Israeli use by some point in the mid-1980s, when Israel anticipated that the waters captured in the 1967 war would be fully used up and more water needed. However, as things stand now, the coveted waters of the Litani remain undeveloped for Lebanon and in limbo for Israel.

On the whole, the 1967 war secured the capture of about 900 mcm/y of water for the Israelis, or nearly half of their water use. These waters are now so many arguments against any kind of settlement with the Palestinians which would involve restitution of that water.

To make things even more difficult, there is another source of extra-boundary water that Israel diverts for its own use, albeit less obviously. The amount of water that Israel takes from the underground of the West Bank is almost as important as the water diverted from the Upper Jordan Valley. This could surprise as the West Bank appears to be quite dry much of the year. In fact it receives more rain than the coastal plain, mostly in wintertime. As the soil is extremely porous much goes into the ground and thus into the aquifers underneath which is now pumped by the Israelis. This subsurface flow of water is a major contributor to Israel's water balance, representing with its 400 mcm/y of water just over 20% of total Israeli consumption. This explains why Palestinians have not been allowed to dig new wells since 1967 and why their water consumption was constantly restricted by the occupier: the hegemony over the West Bank is critical for Israel's water supply.

[Oyvind Snibsoer]

For once, I feel a need to partially defend Israel. If they'd intended to divert the Litani river, they had every opportunity to do so between 1982 and 2000, the year they pulled out of Lebanon. Even the Israelis have probably figured that this is too much of a politically hot potato, though, now matter how thirsty they are.

The Israelis are never going to give up the Golan Heights due to their strategic significance, though. From well prepared artillery positions at the peak of Mount Hermon, Damascus is only 50 km away, within the reach of the MLRS, and also perhaps some heavy artillery guns. These positions have an elevation of more than 2200 meters, over Damascus' 700 meters, giving a significant advantage of elevation. The border to Jordan is 60 km away, while the Lebanese coastline is only 50 km away. In short, whoever controls the Golan Heights controls the area, a Syrian invasion of Israel is impossible because it would have to endure very heavy shelling which would obliterate it long before it reached the current borders. Similarly, Syrian artillery on the Golan Heights would command a significant part of Northern Israel, as the Israelis have bitterly experienced in the past

See the enclosed zip file to see some Google Earth placemarks of IDF positions and distance to Damascus. The borders are not accurately depicted by Google Earth, BTW.

[Kim Whitmyre]

Your post has nothing to do with the theft of water, but says it's ok for the Israelis to have guns on the Golan Heights, but bad for Syria to have guns on the Golan Heights.

How about no guns on the Golan Heights, and no theft of land or resources?

[KNOCKABOUT]

Your post has nothing to do with the theft of water, but says it's ok for the Israelis to have guns on the Golan Heights, but bad for Syria to have guns on the Golan Heights.

How about no guns on the Golan Heights, and no theft of land or resources?

Israeli guns on the Golan have never shelled Syrian civilians; however, the reverse was a considerable threat to the Galil, as well as the entire central plain. And that is to say, the Syrians shelled with impunity. And if you believe that Israeli guns and Syrian guns mean the same thing, and are governed in the same manner, you really need to reinvestigate the situation in the Middle East. Furthermore, Israel does not control the headwaters of anything, they are downstream from Turkey, Syria and Lebanon.

As far as theft of land is concerned... How does an American, and a Californian no less, who stands upon stolen land, "discovered" by a waylaid off-his-gourd Italian sailor, justify such a statement as you hade made here? We Americans, and indeed thoughout the history of the civilized community, have been stealing land and sticking flags into it in order to claim it. Like it or not, you are the legacy of a settler community, and no different than the sons and daughters of Israeli settlers.

I am very interested in how you plan to refute this argument - as it is the foundation of modern geopolitics, and the fundemental basis underlying the legitimacy of nation-states - frankly your cornered. But please reply with something, as I am awfully interested in what you come up with next!

[Paul Girouard]

#1: Your post has nothing to do with the theft of water, but says it's ok for the Israelis to have guns on the Golan Heights, but bad for Syria to have guns on the Golan Heights.

#2: How about no guns on the Golan Heights, and no theft of land or resources?

Like Oyvind said in a 18 year occupation , designed to keep Hezbollah back / away from the border, Israel made no effort to steal the water. Syria has a nasty habbit of attacking it's neighbor , Israel over border attacks have been limited to efforts to keep their country safe from exterior force's , like Syria , Egypt , Hezbollah , Iraqi nuke plants , etc etc .

Israel has made no claim nor taken any action to destroy / conquer / drive into the sea any of it's neighbors that would like to live in peace . Now if you / they prod them they will defend their self .

#2: How about peace on earth good will towards men , can't we all just get along? All wonderful concepts , firing rockets into city's with NO attempt to guide them at specfic targets like Hezbollah does or runniing into a crowded market full of civilians with a bomb strapped on like Hamas does sort of puts a damper on that Eh!

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

There you go - the whole basis for morality and international law in a nutshell.

Might is right
It is perfectly fine to be a rogue nation and sponsor of international terrorism - as long as you are the biggest baddest rogue nation and sponsor of international terrorism..

Pragmatic.

[KNOCKABOUT]

There you go - the whole basis for morality and international law in a nutshell.

Might is right
It is perfectly fine to be a rogue nation and sponsor of international terrorism - as long as you are the biggest baddest rogue nation and sponsor of international terrorism..

Pragmatic.

Well put.

[Oyvind Snibsoer]

I guess I didn't take the time to elaborate my view on this:
The Golan Heights are Syrian territory, occupied by Israel primarily for strategic reasons IMHO. Yes, they do use the water that runs SW off the Golan Heights and into the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan Valley for their own purposes. If the Golan Heights had still been under Syrian control, Syria could have used this water for their own benefits but could not have made any major diversions of the water flow into Israel as this would most probably have triggered a war.

Israel has not made any serious attempts to divert any of the water from the Litani River into Israel, however. If they'd wanted to, they could already have done so in the period 1982-2000.

The northern section of the Jordan River, the part of the river that is north of the Sea of Galilee, receives a significant amount of its water from the Hasbani river. The Hasbani, like the Litani, originates in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon, but is separated from the Litani by a fairly narrow mountain ridge. The Hasbani also drains the northern part of Mount Hermon.

Israel is certainly wary about any impediments to her existing water supply. When Lebanon built a pumping plant at the Wazzani Springs, which feed into the Hasbani, in 2002 in order to supply some sixty villages with water, Israel threatened with war.

Israel does have an enormous thirst. One of the things that struck me as a traveller in the region were all the lush green gardens and parks in Israel, something you hardly ever see in other countries in the region. Arabs simply won't use water for unnecessary irrigation of gardens; it's not in their culture to use water for such unnecessary purposes. Israel also maintains a largely water-intensive agriculture, growing many crops that can't be sustained in the arid climate without massive irrigation.

I am NOT saying that it is OK for neither Israel nor any other factions in the area to shell ANYONE :( I was merely trying to explain the major strategic significance of the Golan Heights, and to make the point that whoever controls this mountain essentially controls the whole area. I do not believe the curent war is about water, either.

FWIW, for professional reasons having to do with previous and existing affiliations with various non-partial international organizations, and the fact that I'm posting under my full name, I do not wish to state any sentiments for or against the factions in a public forum. I'm merely trying to point out some facts :)

[Meerkat]

There you go - the whole basis for morality and international law in a nutshell.

Might is right
It is perfectly fine to be a rogue nation and sponsor of international terrorism - as long as you are the biggest baddest rogue nation and sponsor of international terrorism..

Pragmatic.And of course it's vital for rogue nation's spokesmen and media to forcefully and repeatedly reinforce the message that it's the other guys who are the baddies, not their own fine selves.

Helps to have all the best toys that go boom that you can express rush to your friends too.

[KNOCKABOUT]

I guess I didn't take the time to elaborate my view on this:
The Golan Heights are Syrian territory, occupied by Israel primarily for strategic reasons IMHO. Yes, they do use the water that runs SW off the Golan Heights and into the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan Valley for their own purposes. If the Golan Heights had still been under Syrian control, Syria could have used this water for their own benefits but could not have made any major diversions of the water flow into Israel as this would most probably have triggered a war.

Israel has not made any serious attempts to divert any of the water from the Litani River into Israel, however. If they'd wanted to, they could already have done so in the period 1982-2000.

The northern section of the Jordan River, the part of the river that is north of the Sea of Galilee, receives a significant amount of its water from the Hasbani river. The Hasbani, like the Litani, originates in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon, but is separated from the Litani by a fairly narrow mountain ridge. The Hasbani also drains the northern part of Mount Hermon.

Israel is certainly wary about any impediments to her existing water supply. When Lebanon built a pumping plant at the Wazzani Springs, which feed into the Hasbani, in 2002 in order to supply some sixty villages with water, Israel threatened with war.

Israel does have an enormous thirst. One of the things that struck me as a traveller in the region were all the lush green gardens and parks in Israel, something you hardly ever see in other countries in the region. Arabs simply won't use water for unnecessary irrigation of gardens; it's not in their culture to use water for such unnecessary purposes. Israel also maintains a largely water-intensive agriculture, growing many crops that can't be sustained in the arid climate without massive irrigation.

I am NOT saying that it is OK for neither Israel nor any other factions in the area to shell ANYONE :( I was merely trying to explain the major strategic significance of the Golan Heights, and to make the point that whoever controls this mountain essentially controls the whole area. I do not believe the curent war is about water, either.

FWIW, for professional reasons having to do with previous and existing affiliations with various non-partial international organizations, and the fact that I'm posting under my full name, I do not wish to state any sentiments for or against the factions in a public forum. I'm merely trying to point out some facts :)

Well informed post, and my reply was meant as a rebuttal to Kim's initial post which lacked certain fundemental understandings of the region.

[KNOCKABOUT]

And of course it's vital for rogue nation's spokesmen and media to forcefully and repeatedly reinforce the message that it's the other guys who are the baddies, not their own fine selves.

Helps to have all the best toys that go boom that you can express rush to your friends too.

And you sir benefit greatly from all those best toys that go boom...

[Meerkat]

Debatable.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

And you sir benefit greatly from all those best toys that go boom...

Well meerkat, got it lad? there is no finer purpose in life than to sponsor terrorism in far-away exotic lands.

Picture if you will in your mind's eye a small, smoking pile of stones which was, in the recent past the home of some hapless palestinian family and is now their burial cairn - what more could an american taxpayer hope for?

[Meerkat]

Oh much more than that, Mr. Newt! I salivate at all the opportunties for American businesses in the restoration of Lebanese infrastructure! One must recover the cost of those bombs somehow!

[Meerkat]

Israel has made no claim nor taken any action to destroy / conquer / drive into the sea any of it's neighbors that would like to live in peace . They have made no claims, as such, but they don't seem to have any problem with securing resources for themselves, regardless of the consequences to their neighbors! Their actions of late seem to suggest a policy of maintaining dominance over the region for their benefit, but that's OK because they're such fine, upstanding guys and friends of the US (who they'd never spy on or steal from :eek:).

[KNOCKABOUT]

Debatable.

How is this a debatable statement? You are an American citizen, you enjoy the protection of the United States government.

[KNOCKABOUT]

They have made no claims, as such, but they don't seem to have any problem with securing resources for themselves, regardless of the consequences to their neighbors! Their actions of late seem to suggest a policy of maintaining dominance over the region for their benefit, but that's OK because they're such fine, upstanding guys and friends of the US (who they'd never spy on or steal from :eek:).

Everybody spies on everybody else... its the nature of spying. And as far as their neighbours are concerned - well lets just say it wouldn't just be the land and resources that they would dominate. Hezbollah and Hamas are not fighting for liberation, they are fighting for eradication. So if your neighbours dont cooperate, after a relatively long process of trying to work out differences - one has the tendency to act unilaterally. You would, I would, it is a reasonable course of action. After awhile of unsatisfied results, people tend to take matters into their own hands - Israelis are no better and no worse than you or I. Though I suspect from your previous posts in other threads, you and I may not share exactly similar philosophies on the freedoms of other people.

[Meerkat]

How is this a debatable statement? You are an American citizen, you enjoy the protection of the United States government.Suuuure I do - and I'd enjoy it even more if I was a megacorporation relying on the USG to come in and clean up the messes I make and/or trash the local government so I can profit.

Oh yes, and as an American citizen I am, at least in theory, part of the government. "We the people..." and all that jazz. Too bad most of the benefit goes to those who pay the least taxes. It's the "I pay, they play" scheme of government, no? ;)

[KNOCKABOUT]

Suuuure I do - and I'd enjoy it even more if I was a megacorporation relying on the USG to come in and clean up the messes I make and/or trash the local government so I can profit.

Oh yes, and as an American citizen I am, at least in theory, part of the government. "We the people..." and all that jazz. Too bad most of the benefit goes to those who pay the least taxes. It's the "I pay, they play" scheme of government, no? ;)

It has its limitations to be sure, but all in all it is a wholly enjoyable system. The problem with corporations in the American system, is that to one extent or another they serve at the pleasure of the US govt., and when the government leans on them, they lean on you - it all rolls downhill. And the government leans on Co.'s fairly heavily, at least those they aware of to percieve acting in an unfair and unjust manner.

[Meerkat]

It has its limitations to be sure, but all in all it is a wholly enjoyable system. Stop there! Are you saying it's good enough so no point in trying to make it better? That's as lame as Churchill's remark about democracy being as bad as it is but better than anything else. It vitiates any drive to make it better.

As for the USG dominating US Corporations, there's precious little evidence that it does much more than request the Corps use a litlte lube, but not to worry about the reach around. It looks to me, and I'd say a lot of other people, that the Corps run Congress, not the other way around.

Back to water - water wars will dominate the 21st century and make energy/econmic wars look like strolls in the park in terms of ferocity and bloodshed. One can live without oil, but not water.

[KNOCKABOUT]

Stop there! Are you saying it's good enough so no point in trying to make it better? That's as lame as Churchill's remark about democracy being as bad as it is but better than anything else. It vitiates any drive to make it better.

As for the USG dominating US Corporations, there's precious little evidence that it does much more than request the Corps use a litlte lube, but not to worry about the reach around. It looks to me, and I'd say a lot of other people, that the Corps run Congress, not the other way around.

Back to water - water wars will dominate the 21st century and make energy/econmic wars look like strolls in the park in terms of ferocity and bloodshed. One can live without oil, but not water.

Your above assertions are not related to anything I said, merely to your own extrapolations, so I'll leave my comments as they stand. In addition your comments re corporations sound similar to the protestations one would hear at a WTO meeting, so I wont address these either. And on your point of water - you can make water... cant make oil. Things aren't nearly as dire as you may believe them to be.

[George Roberts]

I was thinking about the experiences in life that my wife and I have shared ...

We cannot agree on what happened. We cannot agree on if we were well treated or impossed upon.

I suspect a lot of our differences have to do with the way people play the game of life.

I suspect that the mideast is much different in fact than in appearance. Both sides set long term traps that they spring from time to time. Those without knowledge of the traps see only a peoples attempt to claim what they had a right to in the past.

---

Rancher in 1800's Colorado to his neighbor: I want to help clear up any future boundry disputes. I have a paper here giving you the right to use as much water in your lake as you wish.

Neighbor: Gee, its my lake, but if it will help me in the future, thanks.

---

50 years later in court on a boundry claim issue: I must own the lake after all my dad gave his dad the right to use the water.

[Kim Whitmyre]

"And if you believe that Israeli guns and Syrian guns mean the same thing, and are governed in the same manner, you really need to reinvestigate the situation in the Middle East. "

Gee, whatever you say :rolleyes:

"As far as theft of land is concerned... How does an American, and a Californian no less, who stands upon stolen land, "discovered" by a waylaid off-his-gourd Italian sailor, justify such a statement as you hade made here? We Americans, and indeed thoughout the history of the civilized community, have been stealing land and sticking flags into it in order to claim it. Like it or not, you are the legacy of a settler community, and no different than the sons and daughters of Israeli settlers."

This has something to do with what I said? Your logic appears to be : Stealing happens, thus stealing is legitimate. Facts on the ground school. Monkey see, monkey do.

"I am very interested in how you plan to refute this argument - as it is the foundation of modern geopolitics, and the fundemental basis underlying the legitimacy of nation-states - frankly your cornered."

Frankly, you are full of yourself, and apparently buy all the modern propaganda. I am not interested in those with only an interest in the status quo, though, so don't bother with any further comments in my direction. I'm not interested in your "argument." Direct your comments to the substance of the report I posted.

[KNOCKABOUT]

Your arguments are thin air, and they belong in a philosophical treatise entitled "what might be." As far as the claimed substance you provided... there is no substance only postulation, a giant "what if" statement. And "what if" statements are exclusively outside the rules of debate as they pertain not whatsoever to factual accounts of reality. But you need to take a pill sister and lie down, there was absolutely no need for the personal attack.

[Kim Whitmyre]

Old Feud Over Lebanese River Takes New Turn

Israel's airstrikes on canals renew enduring suspicions that it covets water from the Litani. The Jewish state denies having any such designs.

By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer
August 10, 2006

QASMIYA, Lebanon — Israeli bombing has knocked out irrigation canals supplying Litani River water to more than 10,000 acres of farmland and 23 villages in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, prompting accusations here that Israel is using its war against Hezbollah to lay claim to Lebanon's prime watersheds.

Heavy fighting and a series of targeted strikes on open water channels and underground water diversion pipes have suspended much of Lebanon's agricultural use of the Litani River along the coastal plain and in parts of the Bekaa Valley near Qaraoun Dam, said water engineers who have surveyed the south.

ADVERTISEMENT
• Ad Script: List=Ad Domains Match=doubleclick
The damaged or broken facilities include a pumping station on the Wazzani River, whose inauguration by Lebanon in 2002 prompted Israel to threaten military action because it diverted water a few hundred yards from the Israeli border, in a watershed that feeds the Jordan River, Lebanese officials said. At the time, Hezbollah promised to defend the facility.

The strikes went largely unnoticed by the outside world in the nearly monthlong air assault targeting Hezbollah guerrilla strongholds in southern Lebanon. But Lebanese point to the extensive damage to their irrigation and drinking water system as evidence that border security and water issues remain intertwined in a region short on both.

"Whenever Israel throughout history has thought of its northern border, they don't talk, for example, of the mountains as a border. They always think of the valley of the Litani," said Mohammed Shaya, dean of the college of social sciences at Lebanese University in Beirut.

Israel has said repeatedly that it has no designs on Lebanon's water.

"There's a policy decision at the highest level not to target those water pumping stations," said Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. "We don't claim an inch of Lebanese sovereign territory. We don't claim a gallon of Lebanese water. We have no hostile intentions whatever towards Lebanon as a country, towards the Lebanese people or towards Lebanese natural resources."

But the enduring suspicion in Lebanon that Israel regards the water of the Litani as its own and the lands to its south as a security perimeter help explain Beirut's reluctance to accept any U.N. cease-fire resolution that does not call for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from the region.

At a minimum, Lebanese officials fear that the repeated attacks on water facilities — as well as bridges, highways, power plants and roads — signal an intention to debilitate Hezbollah-dominated southern Lebanon and enable a long-term Israeli presence there.

"They started [bombing] with the Litani water reservoir, the Litani dam. And we all know that the Litani has a special place in this country," said Fadl Shalaq, president of the Lebanese Council for Reconstruction and Development. "It's a big reservoir of water, and the Israelis don't hide it that there are several parts of the Litani that they would like to take for themselves."

Officials in southern Lebanon said the attacks hit not only bridges, but open water canals, crippling irrigation to thousands of acres here in the Tyre region and in the Bekaa Valley.

During fighting near the Wazzani springs, a guard at the pumping station was killed, the pump was knocked out of service and the underground pipes through which water is transported were heavily damaged, said Hussein Ramal, an engineer for the Litani Water Authority, which operates irrigation systems in the region. "Now every one of these villages is without water."

The Litani flows 102 miles, entirely within Lebanon. It courses south through eastern Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, before turning sharply westward just 2 1/2 miles from the Israeli border, then heading through the coastal plain, past the town of Qasmiya to the Mediterranean, north of Tyre.

Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, who would become the first president of Israel, in 1919 included the Litani valley among the "minimum requirements essential to the realization of the Jewish National Home." David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, proposed including the Litani again in the 1940s on the eve of the creation of the Jewish state. In the 1950s, historical records show, Moshe Dayan, then chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, and others favored occupying and ultimately annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.

Occupation of the West Bank and Golan Heights, though motivated by security concerns, has provided Israel with an important source of water. Experts note that the small slice of land known as the Shebaa Farms, one of the issues in the current conflict, is graced with abundant groundwater flowing from the slopes of Mt. Hermon.

Israel also sees Shebaa Farms as a strategic asset because of its proximity to the Israeli, Syrian and Lebanese borders.

Israel has always argued that much of the Litani's water flows to the sea, wasted.

A large portion of the river's flow is diverted to a series of hydropower dams, leaving relatively little for irrigation in southern Lebanon. But the Lebanese government had planned to offer a $200-million contract this summer to irrigate major new sections of the region.

Both states would benefit if Israel sold Lebanon power and Lebanon sold Israel water, said Haim Gvirtzman, hydrology professor at Hebrew University.

"Should there be peace between Israel and Lebanon, then it will be possible to use the Litani's water as a trigger for a fruitful cooperation between the two countries," Gvirtzman said.

But the Lebanese fear that a prolonged Israeli occupation would give the Jewish state ample time to develop its own international "projects" for sharing the Litani's water.

"In this war, the whole symbol of water has come back with the insurgency now. Because Israel's declared war is to push out the Katyushas" — the rockets being fired by Hezbollah militants — "but the long-range aim, I believe, is to again enter the water issue and push it on the Lebanese," said Mahmoud Haidar, head of the Delta Center for Research and the Press in Beirut.

"If Israel is the winner in this war, in any settlement," he said, "water will become an issue. It will become part of the Israeli demands."

A report on Debka File, a website often described as reflecting the thinking of Israeli intelligence, described "Israel's recovery of control over its main sources of water" at Wazzani as "the most important gain from the crisis" in Lebanon.

"Israel will not cede this asset in a hurry," the website predicted. "Worth citing in this regard is Defense Minister Amir Peretz's statement after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left the Middle East, that Israel would retain control of a security belt in southern Lebanon until a multinational force takes over."

Israeli officials say any damage to water facilities is collateral to strikes on bridges and roads used by Hezbollah to transport weapons.

"The whole idea that we are trying somehow — and this is going back to conspiracy theories — that we are trying to steal Litani water is ridiculous," said Regev, the Foreign Ministry spokesman.

Here on the Litani, in the empty banana fields and citrus groves that stretch for miles, there is a sense among residents that the battle already has been lost.

The airstrikes on the main irrigation canal, the trunk of a system that waters 9,800 acres, has doomed this year's banana crop. No one knows when the canal system might be repaired. The farmers have fled, and the banana plants stand drying under the hot summer sun.

"All the farmers depend on this water. It's drying up. There's nothing left here. It's collapsing," said Mohammed Saghir, a Qasmiya shop owner who stayed behind because he had nowhere to run.

"In 1948, the British hit the irrigation canal, and now the Israelis want to hit it. They know all our families depend on this water," he said.

*

Special correspondent Vita Bekker in Tel Aviv and Times staff writer Henry Chu in Jerusalem contributed to this report.