Build, baby, build

In the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict there are few issues that create more controversy than the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Many have preconceived notions about these settlements, their inhabitants, and their effect on the potential for comprehensive agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The UN condemns them as human rights violations; the US seeks to limit their expansion; and the EU uncharacteristically remains quiet.

Meanwhile, the Yesha Council, an umbrella political organization that is connected to several of Israel’s parliamentary parties continues to succeed in advancing its settlement building agenda. On Tuesday, Dani Dayan, Yesha’s chief foreign envoy spoke in Washington DC as part of a US tour to connect with American academics and government officials.

Framing his conversation in the context of the 20^th anniversary of the Oslo Accords, Dayan comes off as part-historian, part-professional lobbyist, and part-PR man. Engaging a group of diverse political orientations, Mr. Dayan, a successful businessman, is an impressive speaker who understands his audiences and crafts his organization’s message effectively.

According to Dayan, three things have fundamentally changed in the 20 years since Oslo. First, the Palestinian leadership has continued to reject partition plans. Under both Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s (1999-2001) and Ehud Olmert’s (2006-2009) administrations, substantial peace agreements were proposed by the Israelis, only to be rejected by the Palestinians. Second, the 2005 Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has deeply scarred the Israeli public. Third, the settler population in the West Bank has tripled since Oslo, rising to over 360,000 Jewish settlers.

All of this leads Dayan to believe that settlements have “passed the point of irreversibility,” requiring decision-makers to accept them as fact. As he sees it, the US as the sole global superpower and a country with vested interests in the region has three options in the Arab-Israeli conflict. First, the US can continue its diplomatic efforts. Secretary Kerry continues to be a frequent visitor in the region, attempting to garner support for a renewed peace process. Skeptical of progress, Dayan believes that this option will only create renewed frustration. Second, the US can do nothing. As an Israeli with a pro-settlement agenda, Dayan admits he would prefer this option, but objectively understands that the US cannot responsibly abandon the issue. Dayan’s third option is his most attention-grabbing. He proposes that the US work with Israel in separating the political resolution from the need to improve people’s lives.

Here he surprises — a settler leader speaking about improving the human rights and economic conditions of Israelis and Palestinians alike. While a political settlement is stalled, Dayan claims that genuine progress can be made in making life better for the Palestinians, improving conditions in the refugee camps, and even taking calculated security risks to lighten Palestinian burdens.

Few in the room expected Dayan would offer such a nuanced proposal that acknowledges the current condition of the Palestinians. Even fewer expected to hear a call for change from the settler movement when much of the current Israeli governing coalition remains conservative and right-of-center.

Dayan’s proposal is not altruistic.  He sees the Arab-Israeli conflict as a zero-sum game, one that requires him to maximize his own position. He respects the sentiments behind Palestinian statehood but similarly fears it. He opposes “arbitrary” delineations between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River as unrealistic and believes that final status agreements are far off.

Compartmentalizing this conflict and removing its political elements serves to further the settler movement’s goals. It may quiet human rights and legal critics. Second, it is not controversial either domestically or abroad. Most importantly, it cements the reality of settlements within the Arab-Israeli context. For the Yesha Council, helping the Palestinian economy is a means to expanded Jewish settlements, another tactic in a sophisticated arsenal of tools.

Dayan is a compelling and interesting speaker. The economic and human rights conditions of the Palestinians should be improved, as he suggests. But ignoring their political condition won’t help.  A two-state solution remains the only viable answer.  Dayan seeks to make it impossible.