The claim that Zionist settlers “made the desert bloom” is one of the most recognizable Israeli talking points, perhaps second only to the “land without a people for a people without a land” slogan. This line is used so often that it has become a rather parodied cliché. But cliché or not, it still endures to this day and is fervently repeated over and over by Israelis and their supporters worldwide.

According to this myth, Palestine was a neglected bleak desert, and that only after the arrival of the Zionist colonists with their ingenuity was it “redeemed” and made prosperous and blooming with life.

This quite obviously plays on Orientalist tropes about the east, framing it as a desolate, backwards and uncared for land. Land that under the right circumstances, and cultivated by the “right” civilized people, could bloom into a green paradise. This talking point complements the Terra Nullius myth quite nicely, as they both build off each other to create the narrative of the colonists bringing life and civilization to the land. The natives -if they are even acknowledged at all- are framed as having lacked the technological or even the moral mettle to make the land thrive.

Let us set aside the Terra Nullius argument for the moment and delve a little bit deeper into the claims of Palestine being an uncultivated desert prior to Zionist settlement  [Alternatively, you can read more about Terra Nullius here].

A cursory glance at Palestine’s geography would reveal that most of it is part of what is known as the Fertile Crescent (you have three guesses as to why). The region has historically been known for its crops and agriculture.  As a matter of fact, if we are to look at the average annual rainfall in the area over the last 100 years, then Ramallah has a higher average annual rainfall than Paris, and Jerusalem has a higher average annual rainfall than Berlin. Now unless you’re going to refer to north-east Germany as an uncultivated desert, then you might want to reevaluate why Jerusalem was framed as such with comparable levels of rainfall. Although Palestine does not have many sources of surface water -relatively speaking- it has an abundance of ground and mineral water stored in its aquifers.

Truth be told, over its history Palestine has had ample problems with an overabundance of water, leading to the creation of swamplands in the north. Naturally, the drying of these swamplands is also used by Zionists as an example of their ingenuity bringing prosperity to the land, while also claiming that Palestine was a dry desert. National foundation mythologies are seldom consistent, and the Zionist one is no exception.

Historically speaking, there is strong evidence that the fertile crescent is where agriculture was first invented and practiced; for example the Natufians who lived in the area are often credited with being the pioneers of agriculture. This, of course, would not be possible if the land lacked the necessary prerequisites, such as abundant water and fertile soil.

This is not to say that Palestine is entirely free of deserts, as the Naqab desert actually extends over vast territories in the south. But under no stretch of the imagination did this mean that Palestine as a whole is or was a desert. For example, vast swathes of land in California are also considered desert, yet it also contains fertile and cultivated lands that make it a major bread basket in the world.

Another aspect we should be wary of is reading desert as to mean uncultivated. Palestinian Bedouins have long cultivated lands in the Naqab desert using traditional farming and water preserving techniques. Records show that despite the loud proclamations of Zionists making the desert bloom, in 1944 land cultivated by Palestinians in the Naqab desert alone was three times of that cultivated by the entire Zionist settler presence in Palestine. As a matter of fact, the amount of cultivated land in the Naqab desert has dropped significantly since the Nakba in 1947-48. This is yet another case of a popular Zionist slogan being the complete opposite of reality.

If we look at the data even more closely, it paints an even clearer picture: The vast majority of cultivated agricultural land in Israel today was already being cultivated by Palestinians before their ethnic cleansing. Schechtman estimates that on the eve of the 1948 war, around 2,990,000 dunams of land (or 739,750 acres) were being cultivated by Palestinians. These cultivated lands were so vast, that they were “greater than the physical area which was under cultivation in Israel almost thirty years later.” It took Israel 30 years to even equal the amount of land being cultivated before its establishment. Alan George continues:

“The impressive expansion of Israel’s cultivated area since 1948 has been more apparent than real since it involved mainly the ‘reclamation’ of farmland belonging to the refugees.”

It would be dishonest to claim that there have been no new cultivated lands since, but the fact remains that the agricultural core of the Israeli state consists of cultivated farmland that was stolen from Palestinian refugees after their ethnic cleansing [You can read more about this here]. Zionist settlers did not make the desert bloom, as the land was never as much as a desert as they claimed, and even those areas which were classified as such were still cultivated and tended to by Palestinians. The severe drop in the amount of cultivated land in the Naqab after 1948 attests to this fact.

But as usual, these talking points are never about the actual history, or the data, or reality. They are usually about a message to be conveyed, or an image to be maintained. This is especially clear when we look at some of the modern Naqab farms that Israel loves to market. Never mind the fact that, as mentioned, the amount of cultivated land in the Naqab actually dropped; the portrayal of these farms as oases in the desert, and as an ode to Israeli and Zionist resilience and ingenuity is rooted in Zionist propaganda. These desert farms do not make sense economically, and they are unsustainable in almost any way you look at it. However, their purpose lies in their discursive value. As Messserschmid argues:

“Israel allows itself to waste vast amounts of water and water resources, especially for agriculture. Israel, it’s known, uses over 60 percent of its water for agriculture, which amounts to about 2 percent of GDP… Agriculture in Israel is important in terms of preserving the national ethos, and is not calculated in terms of the actual conditions of the water economy.”

Indeed, making a minor green spot in the desert is no magical feat, as Baskin says “All you need is to waste huge quantities of water“. And despite their “water miracle” propaganda stating the opposite, waste water they do.

In the end, this whole talking point is beyond the issue, and amounts to nothing more than Greenwashing settler colonialism [You can read more about this here]. It simply exists to try and show why the Zionist settlers are more deserving of the land than Palestinians, who had supposedly neglected it. Despite the data showing that the land was far from an uncultivated desert, and that Israel stole millions of dunams of cultivated land to kick-start its agricultural sector, it’s a moot point to begin with. For argument’s sake, even if this talking point was accurate, and that the land was mostly uncultivated desert, does this provide a moral cover for settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing and erecting a reactionary ethnocracy at the expense of the people living there?

Of course not. Nothing can justify that. But this raises another point: Why the need to resort to such arguments in the first place? Why did these settlers feel the need to legitimize themselves if they didn’t feel like they were doing anything wrong, or if nobody was there in the first place, as they often claimed?

It’s because they knew they were wronging someone. They knew they were taking over someone’s land, and they knew that they were spouting nonsensical propaganda. This is why these talking points often clash so terribly against each other, because they are not based on fact, but on political utility. It is unfortunate that such baseless claims survive to this day, but as with all propaganda, it loses its effectiveness when you start asking the right questions.

Learn something new?

Consider sharing the article, or support us by becoming a patron on Patreon!

• Institut des études palestiniennes (Beyrouth). From haven to conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine problem until 1948. Ed. Walid Khalidi. No. 2. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1971.
• George, Alan. “Making the Desert Bloom” A Myth Examined.” Journal of Palestine Studies 8.2, 1979: 88-100.
• Messerschmid, Clemens. “Hydro-apartheid and water access in Israel-Palestine: Challenging the myths of cooperation and scarcity.” in Decolonizing Palestinian Political Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2014. 53-76.
• Messerschmid, Clemens. “Till the last drop: The Palestinian water crisis in the West Bank, hydrogeology and hydropolitics of a regional conflict.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Water Values and Rights. 2005.
• Selby, Jan. “Dressing up domination as’ cooperation’: The case of Israeli-Palestinian water relations.” Review of International Studies, 2003: 121-138.
• Selby, Jan. “Cooperation, domination and colonisation: The Israeli-Palestinian joint water committee.” Water Alternatives 6.1, 2013: 1.