NASA: Alarming Water Loss in Middle East.

[happyslug]

18. Water is one reason, but I do NOT think the Main Reason

Many years ago, as a Christmas Present, I received a book written by two retired Israeli Generals, called "Battles of the Bible". It was an interesting read, they analysis the battles in the bible with a military eye (for example, the taking of Jericho, marching around the city for seven days at first put the defenders on edge, but as this march continued day after day the defenders then started to accept it as a nothing, thus slowing their response, thus on the seventh day when the Israelis instead of returning to camp stormed the walls, the Defenders were unprepared and thus the walls "came tumbling down" for their failed to stop the onslaught).

Anyway, one of the recurring themes in the book was that the base for the power of Ancient Israel was the West Bank, it provided a Strategic fall back position that the Ancient Israeli could fall back on if necessary.

On the other hand the Coastal areas, where most of present Israel is located, was along the main road between Iraq and Egypt. They mention when Napoleon had taken Egypt and was marching his army north through modern day Israel, one of his Generals mention Jerusalem. Napoleon said NO, it was to much of a risk given its location among the Judean Hills AND away from the main road along the Coast AND it was NOT needed if the Army was just passing through Palestine.

The Concept that Israel needed to West Bank as a Strategic fall back position, kept coming back in that book. They mention the Crusaders and that they success in HOLDING Palestine for as long as they did was due to the fact they took and held Jerusalem and thus any attack on the Crusader kingdom had to come from Syria or Egypt (and march the distance between those areas and Palestine, a march of many days that had to occur along the only highway, thus easy to stop). On the other hand, if someone else holds Jerusalem and the West Bank, it is less then a days march to anywhere on the Coastal Highway. Napoleon had paid off the Arabs holding Jerusalem when he was in Palestine, thus NOT a concern for him, but it was a concern for the British during WWII (for the Turks held Jerusalem).

Once you understand what makes Jerusalem AND the West bank so important from a MILITARY point of view (as to holding modern Israel as opposed to just marching through it), then why the Israelis were willing to give up on Gaza, while still building settlements in the West Banks is clear, the Israeli high command sees the West Bank as a Strategic position that they want to be Jewish. For the rest of Israel is less then a days march from the West Bank. At the same time The West bank being in the Judean Hills, a Strategic fall back position many enemies would prefer to avoid, as did Napoleon.

Now before you mention that Jordan is the other side of the Jordan River, I like to point out that what is today is Jordan is more desert then farm-able acreage. It is beyond the reach of rain generated from the Mediterranean sea and thus has always had a much lower population then areas closer to the sea, with those areas increase rainfall. On the other hand the West Bank is within the area where rains fall often enough to permit farming, and thus you have a way to feed and thus support a larger population. Thus who holds Jordan is unimportant, it is to dry to support any sizable rural population. On the other hand the West Bank can and does support a sizable rural population, a population Israel wants to be Jewish.