The West Bank settlements are irrelevant to the peace process, according to four respected experts.

At a packed-out panel discussion, which attracted an audience of around 150 a lecturer, a rabbi, a writer and a lawyer all outlined the reasons for their view.

Sara Hirschhorn, a University of Oxford lecturer in Israeli studies, said: “The settlements are not the problem. It’s not a conflict about territory, water, refugees or any of the practical political issues.

“If you’re a policy maker, there’s any number of plans you can use to reach a peace deal. This doesn’t matter, because it’s not a conflict about all of these things; it’s a conflict about narrative. This is an ideological conflict.”

Ms Hirschhorn also predicted that there will be a growth in settlements.

“I’ll bet each of you in this room £20 that if there isn’t a resumption of peace talks, Israel will annex Area C, which is about 60 per cent of the West Bank territory.

“Those Arabs living there - there aren’t many, about 100,000 - will all get Israeli citizenships and Israel will get the most land with the least Arabs. There will be international outcry, but if there aren’t serious sanctions from the US, Israel won’t take any notice.”

Arik Ascherman, president of the Israeli organisation Rabbis for Human Rights, also moved the focus away from the settlements, saying: “If the question is a technical one, there are plenty of technical solutions. However, the real issue is psychological.

“If Israelis or Palestinians could wave a wand and make the other side disappear, we’d probably all do that. But it is the same majority, the same proportion of Israelis and Palestinians who say they want a negotiated peace agreement. Unfortunately, even more of them think the other side doesn’t want peace.

“Psychologically, the continued existence and growth of settlements means the Palestinians don’t think the Israelis are serious about the peace process. If people believed peace was a real prospect, you would see a resolution tomorrow.”

Tom Wilson, who has written for the Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post, dismissed the issue, asking the audience: “If we solved the settlements issue, would that make Iran stop their nuclear escalation?

“The Jews of the West Bank are being scapegoated for the peace process not being solved. There is this idea that if we clicked our heels and got a solution to the settlements then a peace agreement would appear.

“But it’s hard for Israel to justify a strategy which sees them withdraw from land, getting attacked, having to defend themselves and then killing large numbers of Palestinians in the process.”

The best solution, he said, would not be a two-state solution, but rather to “bring the West Bank into Israel proper, give the Arabs full citizenship, full resources and full protection under the law.”

Gerry Adler, a retired international lawyer, said the peace process hinged on what he called "Arab tribalism".

He said: “The settlements are irrelevant to peace. There is actually a strong argument for the legality of the settlements under the UN Charter.

“What this is about is a culture clash between the Arab and the Jew. Arab culture is premised upon tribalism - family protects family, and what is crucial to them is honour. Arabs have to have a zero sum gain, so if they win, the others have to lose.

“Compromise does not come about, because if they compromise, they lose face. Some Arabs say it’s better to have a lose-lose situation, as long as the others lose more.

“The biggest obstacle to peace is the inability of Arab culture to accept that compromise is a good way to go.”