+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The unequal right to water in unrecognized Bedouin villages

By ruling that Bedouin citizens of Israel have only the right to ‘minimum access’ to water rather than ‘equal access,’ the Israeli Supreme Court established that the rule of law does not apply to Bedouin citizens. The resulting situation is intolerable for a country that claims to be a democracy, but is fitting for a country that defines itself only as a ‘Jewish state.’

By Sawsan Zaher

The mosque at the unrecognized Bedouin village Um al-Hiran (photo: Yossi Gurvitz)

On February 20, the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by  residents of the unrecognized Bedouin village of Umm El-Hiran in the Naqab (Negev), demanding minimum access to drinking water. which holds 500 residents. The appeal was filed by Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel on behalf of the village’s 500 residents.

The residents of the village Umm El-Hiran arrived in 1956 when they were forced to move there by the Israeli military commander. Today, 58 years later, they get their drinking water from a water tank provided by the Israeli Water Authority, which decided to locate the tank eight kilometers away from the village. Alternately, the residents can to purchase drinking water from a private family that lives four kilometers away. The latter option is complicated by the fact that there are disputes between some villagers and that private family. More importantly, the family charges a higher price for water than the one set by the Water Authority.

In other words, although the state is responsible for providing drinking water directly and equally to all its citizens, the village residents can either get the water by themselves from the water tank a lengthy distance away or live under the grace of a private family and pay more than all other citizens. Meanwhile, the nearby Jewish community of “Amos,” which consists of only one family numbering a few persons, is connected to water infrastructure that reaches directly to their home with proper facilities – just like the other 30 or more individual Jewish settlements in the Naqab.

The Supreme Court’s decision in February ended an eight-year legal struggle in different Israeli courts. This situation did not come about as a result of lack of natural resources but rather because of an intentional governmental policy not to connect Umm El-Hiran, as well as another 90,000 other Bedouin living on their ancestral lands in 34 unrecognized villages, which are unconnected to water sources to this day. The government has made it clear that the policy is intended to pressure and coerce the Bedouin residents to leave their land by denying them services. The purpose of this evacuation policy is to enable the establishment of new Jewish towns on the same land, create industrial zones under the jurisdiction of Jewish towns or even for the mere purpose of forestation.

This court decision follows a previous ruling issued by the Israeli Supreme Court in June 2006, which dealt with the villagers’ demand to connect their houses to drinking water infrastructure. In a precedent ruling, the court held that the right to water is part of the constitutional right to minimum standard of living, which itself is anchored in the constitutional right to dignity. However, it ruled that citizens living in those unrecognized villages are not entitled to a direct connection to drinking water in their homes. The court basically accepted the state’s argument that the purpose of the refusal to connect the villages to water is the fact they are not recognized by the state, and thus the villagers are trespassers. As such, they are not entitled to any of these services, no matter how basic and essential, including water, electricity, education and health, etc.

The state also declared in court that if it connects the unrecognized villages to water it will “encourage the continuing phenomenon of the unrecognized villages,” and thus by denying permanent water sources it can create an “incentive for the Bedouins to move to villages established by the state itself” – further evidence that the state is using the water issue to pressure villagers to evacuate their land. The court confirmed that the purpose of this policy is adequate and reasonable.

However, the court added that the villagers are entitled to minimum access to water, as an essential resource, without defining “minimum access.” The only exception for which the court allowed direct water connection to the residents’ houses was for “special humanitarian considerations.” After reviewing the case of Umm El-Hiran, the court concluded it is not clear that the water tank eight kilometers away meets the criteria of “minimum access,” and ruled that their case should go back to the Water Authority for re-examination. Adalah appealed on behalf of the villagers to the Water Authority to reconsider providing “minimum access” to water closer to the village; the Authority dismissed the request. Adalah’s next appeal, to the Water Tribunal, was dismissed as well.

As a result the case reached the Supreme Court again. This late action resulted in the most recent court decision, which once again justified the government’s policy of “encouraging” the villagers to move from their lands while declaring again that the current circumstances sufficiently meet the “minimum access” to water criteria.

With this ruling, the court established that the rule of law does not apply to Bedouin citizens of Israel. In upholding the state’s argument that denying the water could pressure Bedouin citizens to move from their land and that the villagers are entitled to “minimum access” to water rather than “equal access” like other citizens, the Israeli court basically justified the refusal to connect citizens to drinking water as a tool for punishing all Bedouin who refuse to leave their land. This goes hand-in-hand with the fact that Israeli authorities intentionally resist recognizing Bedouin land ownership rights.

The resulting situation is intolerable for a country that claims to be a democracy, but it is tolerable for a country that defines itself only as a “Jewish state.” The court refused to acknowledge that this group of its citizens is entitled to “equal” access to water, sticking instead with “minimum access.” That places Bedouin citizens on a lower level than other Israeli citizens in terms of constitutional rights.

Thus the justice system officially refrained from declaring them equal to other citizens. Finally, providing an exception for direct connection to drinking water based on “special humanitarian considerations” moves the discourse of Bedouin rights from a constitutional and human rights issue into the framework of humanitarian rights. Humanitarian legal frameworks are applied in situations of occupation, such as Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. In effect, Israel’s occupation mentality is being legally applied inside the Green Line, and places Bedouin citizens under the authority of an occupying power.

Sawsan Zaher is an Attorney and Director of the Social, Economic and Cultural Rights Unit in Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

Revisions to Prawer Plan for Negev Bedouin expose the farce of law in Israel 

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Khaled Khalid

      What do you expect from an Israeli Court with an Official Racist State Policy?
      Military Commanders move them there as per Ben Gurion’s diktat. Then they are “Encouraged” to move again so nice Jewish neighborhoods can be built.

      Israelis seem to be working through some sick fantasies now they hold the gun. Executed by the Right Wing but also facilitated by the pseudo “Left” to help confuse and drag out the process. It must feel very satisfying to make the “Other” people’s lives a misery.

      But this isn’t the story in the media. The story is if “Over privileged and Bloated” Jews are under attack for controlling Hollywood, US Media, Wall Street, The Federal Reserve, Washington DC. Whether true or not, it doesn’t paint a flattering picture of Israel (The Jewish State) when it schemes and kills to steal water and dispossess land. It simply reinforces the stereotype.

      Yes I know this may sounds Anti-Semitic but all these “Laws” are being executed for the benefit of Jews and Jews only. So really it has come to this: It’s “anti-semitic” to state the obvious.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Rauna

      This may not be apartheid but very,very very close.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Khaled Khalid

      It IS Apartheid but no one wants to offend Israeli – Or be called an “Anti-Semite.”
      It’s an Orwellian trap and heaven for fend anyone state the Obvious.

      Reply to Comment
    4. I’m guessing, but I suspect this decision flows from the expansion of settlement in Israel proper through municipal incorporation. Incorporation is more or less planned by the State, or accepted after the fact. But this reserves the right of refusal of incorporation, which is what is happening here. The premise is that everyone should want to live in a sanctioned municipality. The Bedouin have legally sinned by not so living. So “Amos,” a community of one family, is treated as a coporation recognized by the State, given water access. Kafkaesque, the plight of the Bedouin does not exist.

      If individuals preceed incorporation, this logic fails. If incorporation must preceed habitation, it is secure. Thus individuals are secondry to incorporated arms of the State.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Kolumn9

      The ‘village’ in question is an illegal Bedouin encampment which is in the process of being moved elsewhere. It’s residents received a lease from the IDF 50+ years ago when they numbered a couple of dozen at best with no permanent housing and now at 500 they demand that their unplanned encampment be recognized by the state and be provided with modern services. This is in spite of the fact that the state is offering permanent housing with full access to all modern conveniences nearby.

      Reply to Comment
      • Palestinan

        So the colonists have the right to say whats legal and whats not ? There are 100+ illegal settlements in the West Bank and you have the nerve to question the legality of the residence of people who were chased out of their homes by your racism state?!Your whole state is a large illegal settlement in Palestine.And you wonder why you arent accepted ?! Shameless people,and I mean it.

        Reply to Comment
      • David

        Your description of how this village came into being, also describes precisely how many of the settlements came about. To condemn one but excuse another would be hypocritical, to say the least.

        Reply to Comment
    6. Peter Hindrup

      Will people please STOP using ‘antisemitism’ when they mean ‘anti-Judaism’, or ‘anti-Zionist’ or ‘anti-Israeli’.

      Jews who speak Hebrew are a tiny minority of the worlds Semitic Languages speaking people.

      While Jews may have stolen Palestine, there is no need to allow them to appropriate ‘Semitic’ and render it meaningless.

      Reply to Comment