Israel Advances Settlement Plan That Could Bury Two-State Solution

JERUSALEM — The Israeli government on Thursday advanced an internationally condemned settlement plan in the occupied West Bank that critics say could effectively sever the territory in two and, in the words of one United Nations official, “bury the possibility of a two-state solution under approximately 3,000 new housing units.”

The E1 settlement project, which has been on the drawing board for more than a decade and has been repeatedly shelved under international pressure, would connect the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim to East Jerusalem, splitting the northern and southern West Bank into two non-contiguous zones. In practical terms, this means Palestinians would need to pass through Israeli-controlled territory to travel between their own cities — a logistical arrangement that the Israeli government describes as “efficient border management” and that pretty much everyone else describes as “exactly what we told you would happen.”

The plan was approved by Israel’s Security Cabinet on Wednesday evening, in a vote that was described by attendees as “fast,” “decisive,” and “over before anyone could finish their coffee.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the decision as a necessary step to ensure Israel’s security, which is the same justification Israel has used for every settlement expansion since approximately 1967, at which point the West Bank was still called “the West Bank” and not “Area C, Subdivision 14, Permitted Development Zone.”

The international reaction was swift and unified, which in diplomatic terms means everyone issued a statement expressing “deep concern” and then went to lunch. The European Union called the plan “a serious obstacle to peace.” The United Nations called it “a violation of international law.” The United States called it “something we are monitoring closely,” which is Washington-speak for “we are not going to do anything about this.”

A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the President’s position, said the administration was “disappointed by the announcement” but emphasized that “the U.S.-Israel relationship remains ironclad.” The official then clarified that “ironclad” was meant in the structural engineering sense — it refers to a type of warship — and that the comparison was unintentional but “not entirely inappropriate.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called the decision “a declaration of war against the Palestinian people,” which is strong language from a man who has been calling things declarations of war for so long that the phrase has lost some of its urgency. Abbas reportedly spent the evening on the phone with European leaders, none of whom offered anything more concrete than “we share your concern,” which is diplomatic for “we will issue a statement tomorrow.”

The settlement plan’s most enthusiastic supporters were, predictably, the settlers themselves. Dani Dayan, the chairman of the Yesha Council, the umbrella organization for Israeli settlements, described the E1 approval as “a historic day for the State of Israel” and “proof that the settlement enterprise is irreversible.” Dayan then posted a photo of himself on social media standing at the E1 site with a hard hat and a smile, which drew the observation from one commenter that “the hard hat is a nice touch, but it won’t protect against international law.”

The practical implications of the E1 plan are significant. The corridor would sever the main highway between Ramallah and Bethlehem, two of the largest Palestinian cities, and would cut off East Jerusalem — which Palestinians claim as their capital — from the rest of the West Bank. In urban planning terms, this is roughly equivalent to building a wall through the middle of Manhattan and then telling New Yorkers they can still commute to work, they just need to go through a checkpoint in New Jersey.

At press time, the Israeli government had issued a statement reaffirming its “commitment to a negotiated two-state solution,” which experts described as the diplomatic equivalent of setting a house on fire while holding a fire extinguisher and saying “I’m here to help.”