ZoneFlood

An article from 2003 discusses the Israeli threat to invade Lebanon over the Hasbani and Wazzani Rivers project, which was defended by PM Hariri, who was later assassinated.

A water-pumping station in southern Lebanon that Israel said could be grounds for war has been supplying parched villages near the border with Israel for three months…

…Lebanon, Mr. Hariri said, also wants to protect its water rights. “We asked the U.N., U.S., EU and Russia to help us in defining the quantity of water” that Lebanon can obtain from the Wazzani according to the international laws, Mr. Hariri said.

He told UPI he believes the status quo will continue. “Maybe the political situation in the region does not allow peace, but it does not mean that the alternative is war,” Mr. Hariri said. The Wazzani River flows for about two miles inside Lebanon before entering Israel.

A fascinating book entitled Watershed is available in its entirity online, with many references to the history of Israel and its desire to posess the Litani River of Lebanon. Even in the earliest days of the state, the Litani was considered highly important. From Chapter 8:

It has been apparent to Zionist planners since the early 1900s that water was crucial to the economic vitality of Palestine. For example, Chaim Weizmann pleaded with the British and others to have the Litani River included within the boundaries of Palestine, because he understood the vital nature of this resource to the future of any Jewish state (see Chapter 6 and Figure 11, p. 126). As noted earlier, he was unsuccessful and later complained bitterly that his position was totally undermined by the British (Hof 1985).

From the Independent:

Israeli aircraft dropped leaflets over southern Lebanon yesterday warning civilians to leave border villages for areas north of the Litani river, about 13 miles from the frontier. The area south of the river is normally inhabited by around 300,000 people

From a paper written in 1997:

In the Middle East, the supply of water is much less than its demand, thereby resulting in conflict over it. This is true for Israel and Lebanon, where there have been struggles, although not always armed, for the waters of the Litani River. At this point, Israel occupies southern Lebanon. Part of the Litani is located in this region. There are conflicting reports and conclusions over whether or not Israel is using the Litani. There is also a verbal struggle over which country needs the Litani more, could make best use of it, and who, therefore, should develop their use of the Litani. Although there is not an armed struggle over it now, it has been involved in armed struggles in the past (in the 1967 war, and in 1982) and it is conceivable that in the future the struggles over it may become armed.

From CNN:

Lebanon’s lack of wealth is matched by the Palestinians — three out of every four Palestinians live below the poverty line. Yet the vast majority of our giving in the region flows to Israel. This kind of geopolitical inconsistency and shortsightedness has contributed to the Arab-Israeli conflict that the Western world seems content to allow to perpetuate endlessly.

After a week of escalating violence, around two dozen Israelis and roughly 200 Lebanese have died. That has been sufficient bloodshed for United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to join in the call for an international security force, ignoring the fact that a U.N. force is already in Southern Lebanon, having failed to secure the border against Hezbollah’s incursions and attacks and the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

From WorldNetDaily:

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an “act of war,” the last pillar of Bush’s Middle East policy collapsed.

First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush’s dictum: The world’s worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world’s worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.

From the NY Times:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq on Wednesday forcefully denounced the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, marking a sharp break with President Bush’s position and highlighting the growing power of a Shiite Muslim identity across the Middle East.

“The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure,” Mr. Maliki said at an afternoon news conference inside the fortified Green Zone, which houses the American embassy and the seat of the Iraqi government. “I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.”

From the New York Times:

They came into office waving Lebanon’s flag, victorious over Syria, promising to usher a new age for Lebanon. But as the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora faced the country’s most significant crisis in a decade, its officials disappeared from public view.

As the country faced the third day of Israeli bombardment Friday, the cabinet remained behind closed doors, reportedly brainstorming ideas for a solution. Officials and ministers who normally sought out the press suddenly switched off their cellphones or had assistants screening calls. There were no visits to bombed out buildings, no photo opportunities at the hospital with the injured, and no fiery speeches in defense of the country.

What the government did was call on the international community for help.

From Yahoo! Asia:

The Vatican on Friday strongly deplored Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, saying they were “an attack” on a sovereign and free nation.

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano said Pope Benedict and his aides were very worried that the developments in the Middle East risked degenerating into “a conflict with international repercussions.”

“In particular, the Holy See deplores right now the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and assures its closeness to these people who already have suffered so much to defend their independence,” he told Vatican Radio.

From the New York Times:

Israel today held to three conditions it set for any ceasefire: the release of the two Israeli soldiers seized by Hezbollah in the cross-border raid on Wednesday that touched off the current fighting; a halt to rocket fire by Hezbollah; and a decision by the Lebanese government to implement a United Nations resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah.

In New York, Nouhad Mahmoud, Lebanon’s ambassador to the United Nations, told the Security Council that Israel’s actions “were undermining the sovereignty’’ of his country.

Israel extended punishing airstrikes deeper inside Lebanon today, as President Bush rebuffed a Lebanese request that he push Israel for a cease-fire.

From NBC News:

But all day, the U.S. was alone in defending Israel. At the U.N., the U.S. exercised the sole veto against a resolution condemning Israel’s Gaza incursion.

The European Union called Israel’s attacks on Lebanon “disproportionate.”

In fact, diplomatic sources tell NBC that Israel has been looking for an excuse to clean out Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon after weeks of rocket attacks into Israel.

What role has the U.S. played? Today, U.S. diplomat David Welch arrived in Israel, but critics say too late — 17 days after the first Israeli soldier was captured.

And Rice has not been to Israel or the Palestinian territories since last November.

“I think it’s really inexplicable,” says James Steinberg, dean of the LBJ School of Public Policy at the University of Texas. “There’s been some sense that if they get involved and fail, that somehow it will lessen American credibility. But I think the opposite is true. That American credibility has been damaged by our willingness to get involved.”