The Canary (RSS/Atom feed) 2 days ago

Zionism and the Litani: A colonial hydro-political ambition The struggle over water in the Lebanon–Palestine border cannot be detached from the broader architecture of colonial power that [shaped the modern ‘Middle East’][1]. From the moment[ Britain and France imposed the 1923 borders][2], the Zionist movement regarded the rivers of southern Lebanon — especially the Litani — as essential components of its settler-colonial project. This was not merely a technical dispute over irrigation; it was a geopolitical contest in which water became both a symbol and an instrument of expansion. As a Lebanese researcher committed to sovereignty and opposed to Zionist encroachments, it is impossible for me to read this history without recognising how deeply hydro-politics informed the logic of dispossession that later culminated in occupation and repeated wars. ## Zionist frustration: the Litani placed beyond reach deep inside Lebanon Between 1923 and 1968, water remained at the heart of Zionist objections to the Anglo-French boundary line. That line — drawn with typical colonial indifference — placed the entire Litani River within Lebanese territory, a mere four kilometres from the frontier. For Zionist schemers, this was a profound loss. [Their most ambitious plan][3] for agricultural colonisation relied upon diverting part of the Litani River eastward into the Hasbani River, feeding the Jordan River and ultimately irrigating the Negev. The British–French agreements made no allowance for such a diversion. The proposed commission to study the joint use of the Hasbani was never formed. The early hydro-political field was shaped by absence: no cooperation, no shared governance, no recognition of Lebanon’s rights. Ironically, Lebanon did not initially benefit from Zionism’s failure. The French mandate hardly made use of the river as it sacrificed the industry and agriculture sectors in favour of the services sector. By 1936, irrigation was confined to small pockets, and hydroelectric potential was ignored. Zionist strategists watched carefully. To them, Lebanon’s limited use of the Litani was wasteful. They considered this ‘evidence’ that the river should be integrated into Zionist regional plans. Studies in the 1930s and 1940s encouraged this view. For example, an American University of Beirut study on electricity suggested there is utility for the northern parts of Palestine. A 1943 ‘joint’ Lebanese–Zionist survey went further, recommending that most of the Litani be diverted into Palestine, with Lebanon compensated in electricity. For Zionists, the Litani remained central to the dream of making the Negev bloom. ## Lebanon’s first attempted occupation in 1948 The Nakba dramatically altered the political landscape. Lebanon, already fragile internally, could not risk the stigma of supplying “Arab water” to a Zionist state built on dispossession. Lebanon profited from the economic effects of the Arab boycott, and the United Nations’ 1949 survey showed that Lebanon could use far more of the Litani than the 1943 report assumed. Cooperation became politically toxic. Any Lebanese government willing to sell water to Israel would face internal revolt and Arab outrage. Hydro-politics was no longer a technical issue — it had become an arena of anti-colonial struggle. Israel showed little sympathy for Lebanon’s delicate position. During the 1948 war, [its forces occupied territory near the bend of the Litani][4]. They withdrew in 1949 only because they expected Lebanon to sign a peace treaty — wishful strategic thinking. The episode underscored the same pattern: Israel intended to secure water resources through force whenever diplomacy failed. What Zionist planners had imagined acquiring through agreements, they now sought through occupation. Israel’s 1953 [attempt to divert the Jordan River][5] sparked international outcry, leading to American intervention. The Johnston Mission sought a multilateral water agreement. Its “Main Plan” accepted Lebanon’s insistence that the Litani was a national river, excluding it from the scheme. Israel countered with the Cotton Plan, arguing that Lebanon needed only half its water and should sell the remainder. Yet Israel had no legal claim: the Litani lies wholly within Lebanese territory. Lebanon’s internal politics made cooperation impossible. Any deal would provoke Arab backlash and internal instability. ## Zionist hydro-political dreams begin to crumble By 1955, Israel abandoned its claim to the Litani and adjusted its negotiating stance. The premise that had guided Zionist strategy since the early twentieth century — control of the Litani, diversion to the Negev, regional hydro-political leverage — was slowly collapsing. What remained was frustration, a sense of thwarted ambition that would later influence Israel’s aggressive posture toward southern Lebanon. The first phase of the water controversy reveals a structured pattern of colonial hydropolitics: Zionist pursuit of Lebanese water, Lebanon’s attempt to maintain sovereignty amidst immense pressure, and the transformation of water into a central front of resistance. This was not a dispute over engineering. It was a struggle over land, population, and the legitimacy of a settler-colonial project. The Litani, placed just beyond Zionist reach, became a symbol of Lebanon’s precarious autonomy and of the enduring contest between regional sovereignty and expansionist ambition. *Featured image via Wikimedia Commons* By [Mohammad Fakih][6] [1]:

Canary

Lebanon – Palestine: How Britain’s early decisions shaped the border

Lebanon and Palestine’s border was never natural — Britain carved it through colonial deals, Zionist pressure, and biblical fantasies

[2]:

Paulet–Newcombe Agreement - Wikipedia

[3]: 📄.pdf [4]:

Internet Archive

The boundaries of modern Palestine, 1840-1947 : Biger, Gideon : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

ix, 257 p. : 24 cm

[5]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0030438795900780 [6]:

Canary

Mohammad Fakih

Articles by Mohammad Fakih for Canary

Canary

Zionism and the Litani: A colonial hydro-political ambition

Before wars and borders, there was water. How Zionism targeted Lebanon’s Litani River — and why it still matters

The Canary (RSS/Atom feed) 3 days ago

Israeli rape suspect tells Palestinians in Israel their ‘cleansing’ is imminent In the latest indication of the deranged nature of ‘Israeli’ society, a man accused of [raping a Palestinian prisoner][1] with an iron bar [has told Palestinians][2] in so-called ‘Israel’ to pledge allegiance to the state or face being “cleansed”. Featured in the video is Meir Ben-Shitrit. He is among those accused in [one of the most notorious incidents][3] of abuse within the network of torture centres set up by the Zionist regime. In a case that was [caught on CCTV footage][4] at Sde Teiman prison, Israeli Genocide Forces (IGF) soldiers can be seen lifting a man lying prone on the ground. They then take him to one side, and attempt to obscure their attack by surrounding the victim with riot shields. The attackers caused severe injury to the kidnapped Palestinian, resulting in: > …a ruptured bowel, a severe injury to his anus, lung damage and broken ribs ## Vile diatribe calls on Palestinians to pledge allegiance or be driven out In the unhinged rant, Ben-Shitrit tells ‘Arabs’ — a term used to avoid saying ‘Palestinians’, thereby erasing their identity — to “Put a flag on your house”. He continues: > Pledge allegiance to the state of Israel because we’re in a period of clarification. What do I mean by clarification? In a short time, war will break out over the land. Arabs who carry Israeli identity cards…will rise up to destroy us. The land thief warms up by first threatening ethnic cleansing: > …there’s going to be migration here. Israeli identity cards will not be considered and blue ID cards will not be considered. Soon everyone will receive a migration from here. ID cards are [part of the apartheid system of control][5] applied to all aspects of Palestinian life. Blue ID cards are granted to residents of East Jerusalem, which means less restricted movement than for holders of green ID cards. The latter are issued to West Bank and Gaza residents. The sadist then turns with apocalyptic religious zeal to genocidal fantasies, declaring: > This is your cleansing, as our Torah tells us. “And don’t leave any of them”, nor to even sign a peace agreement with you because we see what a peace agreement has done for 30 years, how many Jews were slaughtered for your stupid peace agreement. Threatening neighbouring states, he says: > A nuclear strike shall befall you, from the oldest to the youngest. We will burn you in your country. He concludes by saying: > We are going to build a temple in Jerusalem and we will cleanse the land of all enemies with the help of God. And whoever raises the Israeli flag, and understands the essence of the state of Israel will be welcomed among us. ## Rant is further evidence of a fundamentally sick society in Israel The latter remarks were made while tapping his kippah, indicating the “essence of the state of Israel” is exclusively Jewish. This is the place our leaders would have us believe is a society just like Britain or Ireland — ‘[the only democracy in the ‘Middle East’][6]‘. In reality, such ethno-supremacist views are commonplace in ‘Israel’, with widespread support for ethnic cleansing and genocide. A [poll in 2025 found that][7]: > 82 percent of Israeli Jews support “the transfer (expulsion) of residents of the Gaza Strip to other countries Not only that, but: > A majority of 56 percent of Israeli Jews supported the “transfer (forced expulsion) of Arab citizens of Israel to other countries. Finally, when: > …asked directly whether they agreed with the position that the IDF, “when conquering an enemy city, should act in a manner similar to the way the Israelites acted when they conquered Jericho under the leadership of Joshua namely, to kill all its inhabitants?” nearly half, 47 percent, agreed. It is routine for pundits to go on ‘Israeli’ television and [call for the killing of children][8]. In Meir Ben-Shitrit’s own case, protesters — including Knesset members — [stormed the Sde Teiman prison][9] in opposition to the arrest of the soldiers involved. The latter was a rare case of IGF abusers facing any sort of reproach for their criminality. Yet even this was too much for Israeli politicians. They [defended the right to rape those kidnapped][10] by Zionist thugs. Palestinians have recounted further cases of brutal sexual abuse, including [rape by dogs][11]. Normal societies don’t kidnap innocent people and rape them with dogs. They don’t have TV pundits who [debate whether four or five years old is the age at which it’s legitimate to kill a child][12]. They don’t view only one ethnic or religious group as legitimate, with all others marked for ethnic cleansing or extermination. Normal countries don’t have ‘settlers’ aka land thieves. ‘Israel’ is not a normal society. It has one of the most depraved cultures that humanity has ever developed. The freedom of unhinged sadists like Meir Ben-Shitrit to openly advocate for further mass slaughter is just further proof of this obvious truth. *Featured image via the Canary* By [Robert Freeman][13] [1]: