In a joint statement published by the UK Government, the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway said the Israeli Government's decision to publish construction tenders for the E1 settlement project was unacceptable. The wording is direct and leaves little doubt about the diplomatic view shared by the seven governments. Rather than treating the move as a narrow planning matter, the statement presents it as a foreign policy issue with consequences for peace efforts. That framing matters because it places the E1 decision within the wider debate on the future political shape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
According to the joint statement, the central concern is that the E1 settlement would damage the prospect of a two-state solution by driving a wedge through the West Bank and weakening the territorial contiguity of the Palestinian Territories. In practical terms, the seven governments are arguing that construction in this area would make a viable Palestinian state harder to realise. That point turns the dispute from a question of housing or infrastructure into one of final-status geography. For ministers and diplomats backing a negotiated settlement, E1 is therefore being treated as a test of whether the physical conditions for a two-state outcome are being preserved or eroded.
The statement also restates the long-held position that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law. It adds that this view has been reaffirmed by the United Nations Security Council, signalling that the signatories see their position as consistent with existing international legal and diplomatic benchmarks. This is an important element of the text. The governments are not presenting a new doctrine. They are restating what they regard as an established legal position and using it to justify a clear public objection to the publication of new construction tenders.
The intervention comes against a deteriorating backdrop in the West Bank. The joint statement refers to grave instability, unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians, and serious restrictions on the Palestinian economy. By setting out those conditions, the seven governments argue that the timing of the E1 decision makes it more serious, not less. This widens the meaning of the statement. Settlement expansion is being linked not only to long-term peace talks, but also to immediate security pressures and economic strain on Palestinian communities.
The seven governments urge the Government of Israel to retract the plans immediately and to end its expansion of settlements in the West Bank. They say the tenders would take the parties further from peace and would also damage Israel's international standing. That language shows that the objection is both substantive and diplomatic. The signatories are saying that the policy would weaken prospects for negotiations while also carrying a reputational cost for Israel in its relations with partners and allies.
For businesses, the most operational part of the statement is the warning on tenders. The governments say companies should not consider bidding for construction work connected to the E1 project and should be aware of legal and reputational consequences, including the risk of becoming involved in serious breaches of international law. That is a clear due-diligence signal for contractors, investors, insurers and professional advisers. It indicates that commercial participation in the project is being treated not simply as a market decision, but as a matter with compliance and public-facing risk.
The statement closes by reaffirming support for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on a two-state solution. In policy terms, the message is that settlement expansion and peace diplomacy cannot be separated: action on the ground is being judged against whether it keeps a negotiated outcome possible. For officials, businesses and civil society organisations, the joint statement sets out a precise benchmark. It identifies the E1 tenders as unacceptable, locates the issue within international law, and signals that future engagement will be judged by whether it protects the remaining path to a two-state settlement.